UNIVlRSiTV  of  CALIFORNIA 
AT    LOS  ANGELES 


THE  CI  FT  OF 

MAY  TREAT  MORRISON 

IN  MFMORY  OF 

ALEXANDER  F  MORRISON 


THE    MOTHER    OF   PARLIAMENTS 


THE    MOTHER    OF 
PARLIAMENTS 


BY 

HARRY    GRAHAM 

AUTHOR  or  "a  group  of  SCOTTISH  women' 


WITH   TWENTY   ILLUSTRATIONS 


BOSTON 

LITTLE,    BROWN,    &    COMPANY 

1911 


i 


V 


Sll 


TO 
MY    WIFE 


42S016 


PREFACE 

THE  history  of  England's  Parliament  is  the  history  of  the 
Engh'sh  people.  To  the  latter  it  must  consequently 
prove  a  source  of  never-failing  interest.  That  it  does 
so  is  clearly  shown  by  the  long  list  of  writers  who  have 
sought  and  found  inspiration  in  the  subject.  To  add  to  their 
number  may  perhaps  seem  an  unneces;;ary,  even  a  superfluous, 
task.  This  volume  may  indeed  be  likened  to  that  "  Old 
Piece  in  a  New  Dress "  to  which  Petyt  compared  his  Lex 
Parliavientaria.  "  These  things,  men  will  say,  have  been 
done  before  ;  the  same  Matter,  and  much  the  same  Form, 
are  to  be  found  in  other  Writers,  and  this  is  but  to  obtrude 
upon  the  World  a  vain  Repetition  of  other  men's  observa- 
tions." But  although  the  frank  use  of  secondhand  matter 
cannot  in  this  case  be  denied,  it  is  to  be  hoped  that  even  the 
oldest  and  most  threadbare  material  may  be  woven  into  a 
fresh  pattern,  suitable  to  modern  taste. 

In  these  democratic  days  a  seat  in  either  House  of 
Parliament  is  no  longer  the  monopoly  of  a  single  privileged 
class :  it  lies  within  the  reach  of  all  who  can  afford  the  luxury 
of  representing  either  themselves  or  their  fellows  at  West- 
minster. It  is  therefore  only  natural  that  the  interest  in 
parliamentary  affairs  should  be  more  widely  disseminated 
to-day  than  ever.  It  does  not  confine  itself  to  actual  or 
potential  members  of  both  Houses,  but  is  to  be  found  in  the 
bosom  of  the  humblest  constituent,  and  even  of  that  shadowy 
individual  vaguely  referred  to  as  the  Man  in  the  Street. 
Though,  however,  the  interest  in  Parliament  is  widespread,  a 
knowledge  of  parliamentary  forms,  of  the  actual  conduct  of 


vi  THE   MOTHER   OF  PARLIAMENTS 

business  in  either  House,  of  the  working  of  the  parliamentary 
machine,  is  less  universal. 

At  the  present  time  the  sources  of  information  open  to 
the  student  of  parliamentary  history  may  roughly  be  regarded 
as  twofold.  For  the  earnest  scholar,  desirous  of  examining 
the  basis  and  groundwork  of  the  Constitution,  the  birth  and 
growth  of  Parliament,  the  gradual  extension  and  development 
of  its  power,  its  privileges  and  procedure,  the  writings  of  all 
the  great  English  historians,  and  of  such  parliamentary 
experts  as  Hatsell,  May,  Palgrave,  Sir  William  Anson,  Sir 
Courtenay  Ilbert  and  Professor  Redlich,  provide  a  rich  mine 
of  information.  That  more  considerable  section  of  the 
reading  public  which  seeks  to  be  entertained  rather  than 
instructed,  can  have  its  needs  supplied  by  less  technical  but 
no  less  able  parliamentary  writers — Sir  Henry  W.  Lucy, 
Mr.  T.  P.  O'Connor,  Mr.  MacDonagh — none  of  whom, 
as  a  rule,  attempts  to  do  more  than  touch  lightly  upon 
fundamental  Constitutional  questions. 

The  idea  of  combining  instruction  with  amusement  is  one 
from  which  every  normal-minded  being  naturally  shrinks  : 
the  attempt  generally  results  in  the  failure  either  to  inform 
or  entertain.  There  does,  however,  seem  to  be  room  for 
a  volume  on  the  subject  of  Parliament  which  shall  be 
sufficiently  instructive  to  appeal  to  the  student,  and  yet  not 
so  technical  as  to  alarm  or  repel  the  general  reader.  It  is 
with  the  object  of  supplying  the  need  for  such  a  book  that 
the  following  pages  have  been  written. 

An  endeavour  to  satisfy  the  tastes  of  every  class  of  reader 
and  at  the  same  time  to  cover  the  whole  field  of  parliamentary 
history  within  the  limits  of  a  single  volume,  must  necessarily 
lead  to  many  errors  of  admission  as  well  as  of  omission. 
The  material  at  the  disposal  of  the  author  is  so  vast,  and  the 
difficulties  of  rejection  and  selection  are  equally  formidable. 
Much  of  the  information  given  must  perforce  be  so  familiar 
as  to  appear  almost  hackneyed.  Many  of  the  stories  with 
which  these  pages  are  sprinkled  bear  upon  them  the  imprint 
of  extreme  old   age;    they  are   grey  with  the   cobwebs  of 


PREFACE 


Vll 


antiquity.  But  while  the  epigram  of  the  past  is  too  often 
the  commonplace  of  the  present,  the  witty  anecdote  of  one 
generation,  which  seems  to  another  to  plumb  the  uttermost 
abysses  of  fatuity,  may  yet  survive  to  be  considered  a 
brilliant  example  of  humour  by  a  third.  The  reader,  there- 
fore, who  recognises  old  favourites  scattered  here  and  there 
about  the  letterpress,  will  deride  or  tolerate  them  in  accord- 
ance with  the  respect  or  contempt  that  he  entertains  for  the 
antique. 

I  cannot  lay  claim  to  the  possession  of  expert  parlia- 
mentary knowledge,  though  perhaps,  after  close  upon  fifteen 
years'  residence  within  the  precincts  of  the  Palace  of  West- 
minster, I  may  have  acquired  a  certain  intimacy  with  the  life 
and  habits  of  the  Mother  of  Parliaments.  For  my  facts 
I  have  to  a  great  extent  relied  upon  the  researches  of 
numerous  parliamentary  writers,  past  and  present,  to  whom 
I  have  endeavoured  to  express  my  indebtedness,  not  only  in 
copious  footnotes,  but  also  in  the  complete  list  of  all  sources 
of  information  given  at  the  end  of  this  volume.  I  wish  to 
express  my  thanks  to  the  many  friends  and  acquaintances 
who  have  so  kindly  assisted  me  with  their  counsel  and 
encouragement ;  to  Mr.  Kenyon,  Mr.  Sidney  Colvin  and  the 
officials  of  the  Print  Room  and  Reading  Room  at  the  British 
Museum  ;  to  Sir  Alfred  Scott-Gatty,  Garter  King-at-Arms ; 
to  Mr.  Edmund  Gosse,  Librarian  of  the  House  of  Lords, 
and  other  officers  of  both  Houses.  My  thanks  are  particularly 
due  to  Sir  Henry  Graham,  Clerk  of  the  Parliaments,  who 
placed  his  unique  parliamentary  experience  at  my  disposal, 
and  whose  invaluable  advice  and  assistance  have  so  greatly 
tended  to  lighten  and  facilitate  my  literary  labours. 

H.  G. 


CONTENTS 


CHAP. 

PREFACE  

I.      PARLIAMENT  AND   PARTY 
II.      THE   HOUSE  OF   LORDS     . 
in.      THE   HOUSE   OF   COMMONS 
IV.      THE   PALACE   OF   WESTMINSTER 

V.    HIS  majesty's  servants 

VI.  THE  LORD   CHANCELLOR 

VII.  THE  SPEAKER  .... 

VIII.  THE  OPENING   OF   PARLIAMENT 

IX.  RULES  OF   DEBATE 

X.  PARLIAMENTARY   PRIVILEGE   AND    PUNISHMENT 

XL  PARLIAMENTARY    DRESS   AND    DEPORTMENT 

XI I.  PARLIAMENTARY  ELOQUENCE 

XIII.  PARLIAMENT   AT  WORK   (l.)     . 

XIV.  PARLIAMENT  AT  WORK  (ll.)   . 
XV.  STRANGERS   IN   PARLIAMENT 

XVI.  PARLIAMENTARY  REPORTING 
SOURCES  AND  REFERENCES  . 
INDEX       


I 

l8 

39 

60 

81 

103 

119 

135 
158 

173 
189 
203 
225 
242 
259 
275 
288 
299 


LIST    OF    ILLUSTRATIONS 

The  Houses  of  Parliament Frontispiece 

From  a  Photograph  by  J.  Valentine  &  Sons 

FACING 
PAGE 

The  House  of  Lords  in  1742 26 

From  an  Engraving  by  John  Pine 

The  House  of  Commons  in  1742 46 

From  an  Engraving  by  John  Pine 

Westminster  Hall  in  1797 62 

From  an  Engraving  by  C.  Mosley 

The  Remains  ok  St.  Stephen's  Chapel  after  the   Fire 
OF  1834 72 

From  a  Lithograph  after  the  Drawing  by  John  Taylor,  Jr. 

Sir  Robert  Walpole 84 

P'rom  the  Painting  by  Francis  Hayman,   R.A.,   in  the  National 
Portrait  Gallery 

Chatham 92 

From   the   Painting  by  William  Hoare,  R.A.,  in  the  National 
Portrait  Gallery 

A  Cabinet  Meeting  (the  Coalition  Ministry  of  1854)  100 

From  the  Drawing  by  Sir  John  Gilbert 

Lord  Eldon 114 

From  the  Painting  by  Sir  Thomas  Lawrence,  P.R.A.,  in  the 
National  Portrait  Gallery 

Charles  Abbot  (Lord  Colchester) 124 

From   the   Painting  by  John    Hoppner,    R.A,,   in   the   National 
Portrait  Gallery 


xii  THE  MOTHER   OF   PARLIAMENTS 

FACING 
PAGE 

The  Treasury  Bench  in  1863 138 

From  an  Engraving  after  the  Painting  by  J.  Philip 

The  House  of  Commons  in  1910 162 

From  a  Photograph  by  London  Electrotype  Agency 

The  House  of  Commons  in  1835 '^^ 

From  an   Engraving  by  SAMUEL  COUSINS  from  the  Painting  by 
H.  W.  Burgess 

Henry  Brougham  (Queen   Caroline's  Attorney-general, 
afterwards  lord  high  chancellor  of  great  britain    1 94 

From  the  Painting  by  James  Lonsdale  in  the  National  Portrait 
Gallery 

The  House  of  Commons  in  Walpole's  Day    .       .       .       .200 

From  the  Engraving  by  A.  Fogg 

The  figures  from  left  to  right  are:— Sir  Robert  VVau'ole,  the  Rt.  Hon.  Arthuk 
Onslow,  Svdnev  Godoi.phin  (Father  of  the  House),  Sik  Josei-h  Jkkvl, 
Col.  Onslow,  Edward  Stables,  Esy.  (Clerk  of  House  of  Commons],  Sik 
James  Thornhill,  Mr.  Aiskew  (Clerk  Assistant). 

Edmund  Burke      206 

From  an  Engraving  by  J.   Watson  after  the  Painting  by  Sir  J. 
Reynolds 

Richard  Brinsley  Sheridan 212 

From  an  Engraving  by  J.    Hall  after   the   Painting  by  Sir   J. 
Reynolds 

The  Passing  of  the  Reform  Bill  in  the  House  of  Lords    246 

From  an  Engraving  after  the  Painting  by  Sir  J.  Reynolds 

The  House  of  Lords  in  i 910 268 

From  a  Photograph  by  London  Electrotype  Agency 

William  Woodfall 284 

From  the  Painting  by  Thomas  Beach  in  the  National  Portrait 
Gallery 


THE   MOTHER   OF   PARLIAMENTS 


THE 
MOTHER   OF    PARLIAlMENTS 

CHAPTER    I 
PARLIAMENT   AND   PARTY 

IT  has  been  asserted  that  the  different  social  conditions  of 
various  peoples  have  their  origin,  not  so  much  in  climate 
or  parentage,  as  in  the  character  of  their  governments. 
If  that  be  true,  there  is  little  doubt  that  the  social  conditions  of 
England  should  compare  most  favourably  with  those  of  sister 
nations.  But  the  admirable  form  of  Government  to  which 
Englishmen  have  now  long  been  accustomed,  did  not  come 
into  existence  in  the  course  of  a  single  night.  "  The  resem- 
blance between  the  present  Constitution  and  that  from  which 
it  originally  sprang,"  says  an  eighteenth-century  writer,  "  is 
not  much  nearer  than  that  between  the  most  beautiful  fly 
and  the  abject  worm  from  which  it  arose."  ^  And  the  con- 
version of  the  chrysalis  into  the  butterfly  has  been  a  slow  and 
troublesome  process. 

Montesquieu,  who  was  an  earnest  student  of  the  English 
Constitution,  after  reading  the  treatise  of  Tacitus  on  the 
manners  of  the  early  Germans,  declared  that  it  was  from  them 
that  England  had  borrowed  her  idea  of  political  government. 
Whether  or  no  this  "  beautiful  system  was  first  invented  in 
the  woods,"  ^  as  he  says,  it  is  certain  that  we  owe  the  primary 
principles  of  our  existing  constitution  to  German    sources. 

'  King's  "  Essay  on  the  English  Constitution,"  p.  17. 
2  "  The  Spirit  of  Laws."    "  Works,'  vol.  i.  p.  212. 

B 


2  '••*  :  i-'^-THE  MOTPIER   OF   PARLIAMENTS 

"Theyidate-'baok  to  the  earliest  days  of  the  first  settlements  of 
Teutons  on  the  Kentish  shores. 

To  the  word  "  parliament  "  many  derivations  have  been 
assigned.  Petyt  explains  the  name  as  suggesting  that  every 
member  of  the  assembly  which  it  designates  should  parley  le 
ment  or  speak  his  mind.^  Another  authority  derives  it  from 
two  Celtic  words,  signifying  to  "  speak  abundantly " — a 
meaning  which  is  more  applicable  in  these  garrulous  times 
than  it  was  in  days  when  debate  was  often  punctuated  by 
lengthy  intervals  of  complete  silence. 

Whatever  its  derivation,  the  word  no  doubt  referred 
originally  to  the  "  deep  speech  '  which  the  kings  of  old  held 
with  their  councillors.  The  first  mention  of  it,  in  connexion 
with  a  national  assembly,  occurs  in  1246,  when  it  was  used 
by  Matthew  Prior  of  a  general  convocation  of  English  barons. 
About  thirty  years  later  it  appears  again  in  the  preamble  to 
the  First  Statute  of  Westminster.  It  has  now  come  to  be 
employed  entirely  to  describe  that  combination  of  the  Three 
Estates,  the  Lords  Spiritual,  the  Lords  Temporal  and  the 
Commons,  which  with  the  Crown  form  the  supreme  legislative 
government  of  the  country. 

The  ancient  Britons  possessed  a  Parliament  of  a  kind, 
called  the  Commune  Concilium.  Under  the  Heptarchy  each 
king  in  England  enjoyed  the  services  of  an  assembly  of  wise 
men — or  Witenagemot,  as  it  was  called — which  advised  him 
upon  matters  of  national  importance.  The  Witan  sat  as  a 
court  of  justice,  formed  the  Council  of  the  chiefs,  and  could 
impose  taxes  and  even  depose  the  King,  though  the  latter  too 
often  took  the  whole  of  their  powers  into  his  own  hands. 
When  the  separate  kingdoms  became  united,  their  different 
Councils  were  absorbed  into  the  one  great  Gemot  of  Wesscx. 
This,  in  Anglo-Saxon  times,  was  a  small  body,  consisting  of 
less  than  a  score  of  Bishops,  a  number  of  Ealdormen  (or 
heads  of  the  different  shires),  and  certain  vassal  members. 
This  senate  was  undoubtedly  the  germ  of  all  future  systems 
of  Parliamentary  government  ;  and  though  for  the  first  two 
*  "  Lex  Parliamentaria  "  (1690),  p.  i. 


PARLIAMENT   AND   PARTY  3 

hundred  years  after  the  Conquest  there  is  no  historical  record 
of  the  meeting  of  any  body  corresponding  to  our  present 
Parh'ament,  from  the  days  of  the  Witenagemot  to  our  own 
times  the  continuity  of  our  national  assemblies  has  never 
been  broken. 

The  parliamentary  historian  suffers  much  from  the  lack 
of  early  records.  None  were  kept  in  Anglo-Saxon  times,  the 
judgments  of  the  Witan  being  only  recorded  in  the  memory 
of  the  judges  themselves.  The  Rolls  of  Parliament  begin 
with  the  year  1278 — though  the  first  mention  of  the  Commons 
does  not  occur  until  1304 — and  somewhere  about  Edward  III.'s 
reign  was  written  a  volume  called  the  "  Vetus  Codex  "  or  "Black 
Book "  which  contains  transcripts  of  various  parliamentary 
proceedings.  At  the  time  of  the  restoration  of  Charles  II., 
Prynne,  the  antiquarian,  set  himself  the  task  of  exhuming  old 
records,  and  catalogued  nearly  a  hundred  parcels  of  ancient 
writs,  private  petitions,  and  returns.  The  MSS,  which  he 
worked  upon  were  so  dirty  that  he  could  not  induce  any  one 
else  to  clean  them,  and  was  forced  to  labour  alone.  Wearing 
a  nightcap  over  his  eyes,  to  keep  out  the  dust,  and  fortified 
by  continual  draughts  of  ale,  he  proceeded  cheerfully  with  this 
laborious  undertaking  upon  which  he  finally  based  the  book 
which  has  made  him  famous.^ 

The  House  of  Commons  Journals  begin  with  Edward  VI. 
those  of  the  Lords  at  the  accession  of  Henry  VIII.  And 
though  during  the  early  part  of  the  seventeenth  century 
speeches  were  reported  at  some  length  in  the  Commons 
Journals,  in  the  Lords  only  the  Bills  read  and  such  matters 
are  recorded.^  The  material  to  work  upon  is  consequently  of 
an  exiguous  nature,  until  we  reach  the  later  days  of  freedom 
of  the  Press  and  publicity  of  debates. 

The  history  of  Parliament  proper  divides  itself  naturally 
into  four  distinct  periods.     The  first  may  be  said  to  stretch 

*  "  A  Brief  Register  of  Parliamentary  Writs  "  (1664). 

^  Elsynge,  Clerk  of  the  Parliaments  in  the  seventeenth  century,  took 
notes  of  the  Lords'  speeches,  which  have  been  published  by  the  Camden 
Society  (1870-1879). 


4  THE   MOTHER   OF   PARLIAMENTS 

from  the  middle  of  the  thirteenth  to  nearly  the  end  of  the 
fifteenth  century  ;  the  second  dates  from  the  accession  of 
Henry  VII.,  and  extends  to  the  Revolution  of  1688.  The 
remaining  century  and  a  half,  up  to  the  Reform  Bill  of 
1832,  forms  the  third  period  ;  and  with  the  passing  of  that 
momentous  Act  commences  the  last  and  most  important 
epoch  of  all. 

During  the  first  two  periods  of  parliamentary  history,  the 
whole  authority  of  government  was  vested  in  the  Crown  ; 
during  the  third  it  gradually  passed  into  the  possession  of  the 
aristocracy :  and  it  is  only  within  the  last  century  that  the 
people,  through  their  representatives  in  the  House  of 
Commons,  have  gained  a  complete  political  ascendency. 

From  the  days  of  the  absolute  monarchy  of  Norman 
sovereigns  until  the  reign  of  King  John,  the  Crown,  the 
Church,  the  Barons,  and  the  people,  were  always  struggling 
with  each  other ;  in  that  reign  the  three  last  forces  combined 
against  the  King.  The  struggle  was  never  subsequently 
relaxed,  but  it  took  over  six  centuries  to  transfer  the  govern- 
ing power  of  the  country  from  the  hands  of  one  individual  to 
that  of  the  whole  people. 

Prior  to  the  reign  of  Henry  III.,  no  regular  legislative 
assembly  existed,  though  the  King  would  occasionally 
summon  councils  of  the  great  men  of  the  land  for  consultative 
purposes.  In  William  the  Conqueror's  time  the  ownership 
of  land  became  the  qualification  for  the  Witenagemot,  and 
the  National  Council  which  succeeded  that  assembly  thus 
became  a  Council  of  the  King's  feudal  vassals,  and  not  neces- 
sarily an  assembly  of  wise  men.  When,  however,  Simon  de 
Montford  overthrew  Henry  III.  at  Lewes,  he  summoned  a 
convocation  which  included  representative  knights  and 
burgesses,  and  the  parliamentary  system,  thus  instituted,  was 
subsequently  adopted  by  Edward  I.  "  Many  things  have 
changed,"  says  Dr.  Gardiner  in  his  "  History  of  England,"  "  but 
in  all  main  points  the  Parliament  of  England,  as  it  exists  at 
this  day,  is  the  same  as  that  which  gathered  around  the  great 
Plantagenet."     The  first  full  Parliament  in  English  history 


PARLIAMENT  AND   PARTY  5 

may,  therefore,  be  said  to  have  been  summoned  by  Edward  I. 
on  November  13,  1295,  and  represented  every  class  of  the 
people. 

Parliament  thereafter  gradually  resolved  itself  into  two 
separate  groups ;  on  the  one  hand  the  barons  and  prelates, 
representing  the  aristocracy  and  the  Church,  on  the  other  the 
knights  and  burgesses,  representing  the  county  freeholders, 
citizens  and  boroughfolk.  The  former  constituted  a  High 
Court  of  Justice  and  final  Court  of  Appeal ;  the  chief  duty  of 
the  latter  lay  in  levying  taxes,  and  they  were  not  usually 
summoned  unless  the  Crown  were  in  need  of  money.  These 
two  component  groups  originally  sat  together,  forming  a 
collective  assembly  from  which  the  modern  Parliament  has 
gradually  developed. 

In  the  early  days  of  Parliament  the  Lords  came  to  be 
regarded  as  the  King's  Council,  over  which  he  presided  in 
person  ;  the  Commons  occupied  a  secondary  and  insignificant 
position.  The  power  of  legislating  was  entirely  in  the  hands 
of  the  King,  who  framed  whatever  laws  he  deemed  expedient, 
acting  on  the  humble  petition  of  his  people.  The  Crown  thus 
exercised  absolute  control  over  Parliament,  and  the  royal  yoke 
was  not  destined  to  be  thrown  off  for  many  hundreds  of  years. 

In  the  reign  of  Edward  III.,  the  meetings  of  Parliament 
were  uncertain  and  infrequent ;  its  duration  was  brief.  Three 
or  four  Parliaments  would  be  held  every  year,  and  only  sat 
for  a  few  weeks  at  a  time.  The  King's  prerogative  to  dis- 
solve Parliament  whenever  he  so  desired — "  of  all  trusts 
vested  in  his  majesty,"  as  Burke  says,  "  the  most  critical 
and  delicate  "  ^  was  one  of  which  mediaeval  monarchs  freely 
availed  themselves  in  the  days  when  Parliament  had  not 
yet  found,  nor  indeed  realised,  its  potential  strength. 

During  the  reigns  of  the  Tudors  and  Stuarts,  the  power 
of  the  Crown  was  still  supreme,  though  many  attempts  were 

'  "  Works  and  Correspondence,"  vol.  iii.  p.  525.  (The  power  to  dissolve 
Parliament  is  still  theoretically  in  the  hands  of  the  Sovereign  ;  practically 
it  is  in  those  of  the  Cabinet.  Parliament  has  only  been  dissolved  once 
by  the  Sovereign  since  the  beginning  of  the  eighteenth  century.) 


6  THE   MOTHER   OF  PARLIAMENTS 

made  to  weaken  it.  This  second  period  of  history,  between 
1485  and  1688,  was  a  time  of  peculiar  political  stress,  in 
which  Parliament  and  the  Crown  were  engaged  in  a  perpetual 
conflict.  Kings  maintained  their  influence  by  a  mixture 
of  threats  and  cajolery  which  long  proved  effective.  In  1536, 
for  instance,  we  find  Henry  VIII.  warning  the  House  of 
Commons  that,  unless  some  measure  in  which  he  was 
interested  were  passed,  certain  members  of  that  assembly 
would  undoubtedly  lose  their  heads.^ 

The  Stuart  kings  were  in  the  habit  of  suborning  members 
of  both  Houses,  by  the  gift  of  various  lucrative  posts  or  the 
lavish  distribution  of  bribes.  It  was  ever  the  royal  desire 
to  weaken  Parliament,  and  this  end  was  attained  in  a  variety 
of  ways.  In  the  early  part  of  the  seventeenth  century,  we 
hear  of  Charles  I.  summoning  to  Hampton  Court  certain 
members  whose  loyalty  he  distrusted  or  whose  absence 
from  Parliament  he  desired.  On  one  such  occasion  the 
Earls  of  Essex  and  Holland  refused  to  obey  his  command, 
saying  that  their  parliamentary  writ  had  precedence  of  any 
royal  summons — an  expression  of  independence  for  which 
they  were  dismissed  from  the  Court.^ 

In  the  time  of  Charles  II.  a  definite  system  of  influencing 
members  of  Parliament  by  gifts  of  money  was  first  framed. 
Lord  Clifford,  the  Lord  Treasurer,  being  allowed  a  sum  of 
;^io,ooo  for  the  purpose.  The  fact  of  holding  an  appoint- 
ment in  the  pay  of  the  Crown  was  in  itself  considered 
sufficient  to  bind  a  member  to  vote  in  accordance  with  the 
royal  will.  In  1685,  when  many  members  who  were  in  the 
Government  service  threatened  to  vote  against  the  Court, 
Middleton,  the  Secretary  of  State,  bitterly  reproached  them 
with  breach  of  faith.  "  Have  you  not  a  troop  of  horse  in 
his  Majesty's  service?"  he  asked  of  a  certain  Captain 
Kendall.  "  Yes,  my  lord,"  was  the  reply,  "  but  my  brother 
died  last  night  and  left  me  ;^7oo  a  year !  "  ^ 

'  Oldfield's  "  History  of  Great  Britain  and  Ireland,"  vol.  i.  p.  280. 

2  May's  "  A  Breviary  of  the  History  of  Parliament  "  (1680),  p.  21. 

3  Burnet's  *  History  of  His  Own  Times,"  vol.  iii.  p.  92  n. 


PARLIAMENT   AND   PARTY  7 

Andrew  Marvell  has  drawn  a  vivid  but  disagreeable 
picture  of  the  Parliament  which  was  summoned  immediately 
after  the  Restoration.  Half  the  members  of  the  House  of 
Commons  he  described  as  "court  cullies" — the  word  "to 
cully  "  meaning  apparently  to  befool  or  cheat — and  in  "  A 
list  of  the  Principal  Labourers  in  the  great  Design  of  Popery 
and  Arbitrary  Law,"  gives  a  catalogue  of  the  names  of  over 
two  hundred  members  of  Parliament  who  received  presents 
from  the  Court  at  this  time.^ 

The  independence  of  Parliament  was  first  asserted  by 
that  staunch  old  patriot  Sir  John  Eliot,  who,  during  the 
reign  of  Charles  L,  declared  to  the  Commons  that  they 
"came  not  thither  either  to  do  what  the  King  should  com- 
mand them,  nor  to  abstain  when  he  forbade  them  ;  they 
came  to  continue  constant,  and  to  maintain  their  privileges."  ^ 
But  in  spite  of  such  brave  words,  the  power  of  the  Crown 
was  not  finally  subdued  until  the  Revolution. 

The  downfall  of  the  Monarchy  at  the  time  of  the 
Commonwealth  was  followed  by  the  temporary  abolition  of 
both  Lords  and  Commons,  the  latter  disappearing  in 
company  with  Cromwell's  famous  "  bauble."  The  Protector 
then  proceeded  to  call  together  a  body  of  "  nominees,"  one 
hundred  and  forty  in  number,  who  represented  the  various 
counties  in  proportion  to  the  amount  of  taxes  each  of  these 
contributed.  Of  the  seven  nominees  supplied  by  London, 
Praise  God  Barebones,  a  Fleet  Street  leather  merchant,  gave 
his  name  to  the  Parliament  thus  assembled.  Cromwell 
also  created  a  new  House  of  Lords,  numbering  about  sixty.^ 

'  E.g.,  "  Sir  Edward  Turner,  who  for  a  secret  service  had  lately  a 
bribe  of  ;^4ooo,  as  in  the  Exchequer  may  be  seen,  and  about  ^2000 
before  ;  and  made  Lord  Chief  Baron. 

"  Sir  Stephen  Fox — once  a  link  boy  ;  then  a  singing  boy  at  Salisbury  ; 
then  a  serving  man  ;  and  permitting  his  wife  to  be  common  beyond  sea, 
at  the  Restoration  was  made  Paymaster  of  the  Guards,  where  he  has 
cheated;^ 1 00,000,  and  is  one  of  the  Green  Cloth."  "Flagellum  Parlia- 
mentarium,"  pp.  10  and  24. 

2  Forster's  "  Life  of  Sir  John  Eliot,"  vol.  i.  p.  529. 

'  Se»    '  Journal  of  the  Protectorate  House  of  Lords,  from  the  original 


8  THE   MOTHER   OF   PARLIAMENTS 

With  the  Restoration  the  Crown  resumed  much  of  its 
former  power.  In  1682  the  publisher  of  a  reprint  of 
Nathaniel  Bacon's  "  Historical  Discourse,"  which  declared 
that  Kings  could  "do  nothing  as  Kings  but  that  of  Right 
they  ought  to  do,"  and  that  though  they  might  be  "Chief 
Commanders,  yet  they  are  not  Chief  Rulers,"  was  outlawed 
for  these  treasonable  statements.  It  was  not,  indeed,  until 
the  Revolution  of  1688  that  the  royal  influence  was  curtailed, 
so  small  a  revenue  being  allowed  to  William  III.  that  the 
ordinary  expenses  of  government  could  not  be  defrayed 
without  assembling  Parliament. 

The  attendance  of  the  King  in  Parliament  had  been 
usual  in  early  days,  but  the  Commons  always  deprecated 
the  presence  of  the  Sovereign  in  their  midst.  Charles  I. 
affords  the  only  example  of  a  monarch  attending  a  debate 
in  the  Lower  House,  when  on  that  famous  4th  of  January', 
1642,  he  marched  from  Whitehall  to  Westminster,  with  the 
intention  of  arresting  the  five  leading  members,  Hampden, 
Pym,  Holies,  Haselrig  and  Strode,  authors  of  the  Grand 
Remonstrance,  whom  he  had  caused  to  be  impeached  on 
the  preceding  afternoon.  The  House  had  been  put  upon  its 
guard  by  Lady  Carlisle,  and  on  the  eventful  day,  a  French 
officer,  Hercule  Langres,  made  his  way  to  Westminster  and 
warned  Pym  and  his  colleagues  of  the  approach  of  the  royal 
troops.  When  therefore  the  King  arrived  he  found  that  his 
birds  had  already  flown,  and  was  compelled  to  retire  empty- 
handed,  amid  cries  of  "  Privilege ! "  from  members  of  the 
outraged  assembly. 

In  those  times  the  desire  of  the  Commons  was  to  keep 
the  Crown  as  ignorant  as  possible  on  the  subject  of  their 
doings.  The  habit  of  providing  the  King  with  a  daily 
account  of  Parliamentary  proceedings  did  not  come  into 
fashion  until  the  end  of  the  eighteenth  century,  when  the 
House  was  no  longer  afraid  of  the  royal  power. 

The    Lords    have    never    objected    as    strongly   as    the 

MS.  in   the   possession   of  Lady  Tangye,   January   20,  1657,  to  April 
22,  1659."     House  of  Lords  MSS.  vol.  iv.  new  series,  p.  503. 


PARLIAMENT  AND   PARTY  9 

Commons  to  the  royal  presence.  Charles  II.  often  found 
the  time  hang  heavy  on  his  hands,  and  would  stroll  down  to 
the  Upper  House,  "  as  a  pleasant  diversion."  He  began  by 
sitting  quietly  on  the  Throne,  listening  to  the  debates.  Later 
on  he  took  to  standing  by  the  fireplace  of  the  Lords,  where 
he  was  soon  surrounded  by  many  persons  anxious  to  gain  the 
royal  ear,  and  thus  "  broke  all  the  decency  of  that  House."  ^ 
Since  the  accession  of  Queen  Anne,  however,  no  Sovereign 
has  been  present  in  Parliament,  save  at  the  opening  or  closing 
ceremonies.  But  long  after  kings  had  ceased  to  attend  Par- 
liament in  person  they  continued  to  attempt  the  control  of 
its  proceedings.  George  III.  finally  brought  matters  to 
a  head  by  his  perpetual  interference  with  the  affairs  of  the 
Commons,  and  caused  the  passing  of  that  momentous  resolu- 
tion, moved  by  Dunning  on  April  6,  1780, "  that  the  influence 
of  the  Crown  has  increased,  is  increasing,  and  ought  to  be 
diminished,"  which  disturbed  if  it  could  not  vex  Dr.  Johnson.^ 
Between  1688  and  1S32  political  life  in  England  was 
excessively  corrupt.  Parliament  had  grown  to  a  certain 
extent  independent  of  the  Crown,  but  had  not  yet  learnt 
to  depend  upon  public  opinion.  It  was  consequently  a 
difficult  body  to  deal  with,  and  had  to  be  managed  by  a 
system  of  open  bribery  which  first  showed  itself  most  con- 
spicuously in  the  shape  of  retaining  fees  paid  to  Scottish 
members.^  In  1690  the  practice  of  regularly  bribing  members 
of  the  House  of  Commons  was  undertaken  by  the  Speaker, 
Sir  John  Trevor,  on  behalf  of  the  Tory  party.  In  Queen 
Anne's  reign  a  statesman  paid  thousands  of  pounds  for  the 
privilege  of  being  made  Secretary  of  State,  and  a  few  years 

^  Burnet's  "  History  of  His  Own  Time,"  vol.  i.  p.  184. 

2  "  Public  affairs  vex  no  man,"  said  Dr.  Johnson,  when  asked  whether 
he  were  not  annoyed  by  this  vote.  "  I  have  never  slept  an  hour  less,  nor 
eat  an  ounce  less  meat.  I  would  have  knocked  the  factious  dogs  on  the 
head,  to  be  sure  ;  but  I  was  not  vexed.'''' 

3  Boswell's  "Life  of  Johnson,"  p.  731.  (Cromwell  had  ahready 
stigmatized  Scotland  as  corrupt.  He  had  been  told,  he  said,  that  it  was 
a  poor  country  inhabited  by  honest  people,  but  found  that  the  country 
was  not  poor  and  the  people  anything  but  honest.) 


10  THE  MOTHER  OF   PARLIAMENTS 

later  we  find  Sir  Robert  Walpole  assuring  a  brother  of  Lord 
Gower  that  he  knew  the  price  of  every  man  but  three  in  the 
House  of  Lords.^ 

Bribery  no  longer  emanated  direct  from  the  Crown,  but 
was  practised  vicariously  by  the  King  through  his  ministers. 
They  might  object  to  the  system,  but,  as  King  William  once 
said  to  Bishop  Burnet,  they  had  to  do  with  *'  a  set  of  men 
who  must  be  managed  in  this  vile  way  or  not  at  all."'^ 
Macaulay  likens  the  Parliament  of  that  time  to  a  pump  which, 
though  it  may  appear  dry,  will,  if  a  little  water  is  poured  into 
it,  produce  a  great  flow.  So,  he  says,  ;^  10,000  given  in 
bribes  to  Parliament  would  often  produce  a  million  in 
supplies.3  Even  Pelham,  a  man  of  unblemished  reputation 
in  private  life,  saw  the  absolute  necessity  of  distributing 
bribes  right  and  left.  And  in  1782  wc  find  Lord  North 
writing  to  George  III.  to  remind  him  that  "the  last  general 
election  cost  near  ;^50,ooo  to  the  Crown,  beyond  which 
expense  there  was  a  pension  of  ;^iooo  a  year  to  Lord 
Montacute  and  ;^500  a  year  to  Mr.  Selwyn  for  their  interest 
at  Midhurst  and  Luggershall."  * 

Seats  in  Parliament  were  regularly  bought  and  sold,  the 
price  varying  from  ^^1500  to  as  much  as  £yooo.  Flood,  the 
Irish  politician,  purchased  a  seat  in  the  English  House  of 
Commons  for  ^4000.  The  notoriously  corrupt  borough  of 
Gatton  was  publicly  advertised  for  sale  in  1792,  with  the 
power  of  nominating  two  representatives  for  ever,  described 
by  the  auctioneer  as  "  an  elegant  contingency."^  This  same 
seat  was  sold  in  183 1  by  Sir  Mark  Wood  for  the  huge  sum 
of  ;^6o,ooo,  and  the  purchaser's  feelings  may  well  be  imagined 
when,  under  the  Reform  Act  of  the  following  year,  the 
borough  was  disfranchised  and  rendered  worthless.'' 

'  Dr.  King's  "Anecdotes  of  His  Own  Time,"  p.  44. 

2  "  History  of  His  Own  Time,"  vol.  ii.  p.  76. 

^  "  History,"  vol.  iii.  p.  545. 

*  "  Correspondence  of  George  III.  and  Lord  North,"  vol.  ii.  p.  425. 

^  Bell's  "  Life  of  Canning,"  p.  347. 

6  Mark  Boyd's  "  Social  Gleanings,"  p.  246. 


PARLIAMENT   AND   PARTY  ii 

Parliament  was  for  long  in  the  hands  of  a  few  rich  persons. 
Wealthy  individuals  would  buy  property  in  small  boroughs 
in  order  to  increase  their  political  influence,  and  cared  little 
for  the  fitness  of  the  representatives  whom  they  nominated. 
The  story  is  told  of  a  peer  being  asked  who  should  be 
returned  for  one  of  his  boroughs,  and  casually  mentioning  a 
waiter  at  White's  Club  whom  he  did  not  even  know  by  name. 
The  waiter  was  duly  elected,  and,  for  aught  we  know,  may 
have  made  a  most  worthy  and  excellent  member  of  Par- 
liament.^ 

In  1815  the  House  of  Commons  contained  471  members 
who  were  the  creatures  of  144  peers  and  123  Commoners. 
Sixteen  representatives  were  Government  nominees ;  and 
only  171  members  were  actually  elected  by  the  popular  vote.- 
Five  years  later  nearly  half  the  House  were  returned  by 
peers.^ 

The  passing  of  the  Septennial  Act  in  1716,  in  place  of  the 
Triennial  Act  of  1694,  though  meeting  with  much  hostile 
criticism,*  had  helped  to  further  that  growing  independence  of 
both  Lords  and  Crown  which  was  the  chief  aim  of  the 
Commons.  Before  the  Triennial  Act  Parliament  could  only 
be  dissolved  by  the  Crown.  Under  the  Triennial  Act  it 
suffered  a  natural  death  three  years  after  the  day  on  which 
it  was  summoned.  The  Septennial  Act  lengthened  that 
existence  by  a  further  period  of  four  years.  Members  were 
no  longer  kept  in  a  state  of  perpetual  anticipation  of  an 
imminent  General  Election;  they  were  no  more  harassed  by 
the  fear  of  losing  their  seats  at  any  moment.  With  security 
came  strength,  but  purity  was  a  long  time  in  following.  The 
Septennial  Act,  says  Lecky,  gave  "  a  new  stability  to  English 
policy,  a  new  strength  to  the  dynasty,  and  a  new  authority  to 

'  Russell's  "  Recollections,"  p.  35. 

^  Oldfield's  "  Representative  History,"  vol.  vi.,  App. 

3  "The  Black  Book,"  vol.  i.  p.  430. 

*  "  By  the  same  violence  that  one  Parliament,  chosen  but  for  Three 
Years,  could  prolong  their  own  sitting  for  Seven,  any  other  may  presume 
to  render  themselves  perpetual."  Ralph's  "  Uses  and  Abuses  of  Parlia- 
ment," vol.  ii.  p.  716. 


12  THE  MOTHER  OF   PARLIAMENTS 

the  House  of  Commons."  But  it  certainly  did  not  tend  to 
decrease  the  corruption  which  was  then  rampant  both  in 
Parliament  and  in  the  country. 

The  whole  body  politic  was,  indeed,  utterly  rotten,  and  it 
was  only  considered  possible  to  maintain  the  ministerial  in- 
fluence by  a  system  of  disciplined  Treasury  corruption.  The 
secret  service  money  with  which  votes  were  bought  was  in  the 
control  of  the  Prime  Minister,  and  Walpole  is  said  to  have 
stated  that  he  did  not  care  a  rap  who  made  Members  of  Par- 
liament so  long  as  he  was  allowed  to  deal  with  them  after 
they  were  made.  The  produce  of  the  taxes  descended  in 
fertilizing  showers  upon  the  proprietors,  the  agents  and  the 
members  for  boroughs.  For  them,  as  Lord  John  Russell  said, 
the  General  Election  was  a  state  lottery  in  which  there  was 
nothing  but  prizes.  "  The  elector  of  a  borough,  or  a  person 
he  recommends,  obtains  a  situation  in  the  Customs ;  the 
member  of  Parliament  obtains  a  place  in  the  Mediterranean 
for  a  near  relation  ;  the  proprietor  of  the  borough  obtains 
a  peerage  in  perspective;  and  the  larger  proprietor,  fol- 
lowed by  his  attendant  members,  shines  in  the  summer  of 
royal  favour,  with  a  garter,  a  regiment,  an  earldom,  or  a 
marquisate."  ^  So  ingrained  had  this  idea  become  in  the 
public  mind  that  the  Duke  of  Wellington  is  supposed  to 
have  asked  ingenuously,  on  the  abolition  of  the  rotten 
boroughs,  "How  will  the  King's  Government  be  carried 
on?" 

Several  ineffectual  efforts  had  from  time  to  time  been 
made  to  slay  the  monster  of  corruption.  From  the  days  of 
Cromwell  the  question  of  Parliamentary  reform  had  been 
anxiously  urged  by  many  statesmen,  notably  Lord  Shaftesbury 
and  Pitt,  of  whom  the  latter  introduced  reformative  measures 
in  1781,  1782  and  1785.  But  though  Pitt,  the  first  Prime 
Minister  who  did  not  retain  any  of  the  public  money  for 
distribution  among  his  friends  and  supporters,  managed  to 
reduce  "places"  worth  over  ;^2oo,ooo,  after  the  American 
War,  there  still  remained  any  number  of  inflated  pensions 
1  "  Essays  and  Sketches  of  Life  and  Character,"  p.  148. 


PARLIAMENT  AND   PARTY  13 

and  sinecures  in  the  gift  of  the  Government/  and  it  was  not 
until  Parh'ament  came  to  be  controlled  entirely  by  public 
opinion  that  the  change  from  corruption  to  purity  took  place. 
But  notwithstanding  many  flaws  in  theory  and  blots  in 
practice,  the  English  Parliamentary  Constitution  prior  to  the 
Reform  Bill  was,  as  Mr.  Gladstone  called  it,  one  of  the 
wonders  of  the  world.  "  Time  was  its  parent,  silence  was  its 
nurse.  .  .  It  did  much  evil  and  it  left  much  good  undone  ; 
but  it  either  led  or  did  not  lag  behind  the  national  feeling 
and  opinion."^  With  the  Reform  Act  of  1832,  Parliament 
advanced  another  stage  in  its  career.  The  House  of  Commons 
definitely  shook  itself  free  from  the  active  corruption  which 
had  so  long  impeded  its  movements. 

The  principle  of  Party  Government,  which  now  lies  at  the 
very  root  of  our  parliamentary  system,  had  its  origin  during 
the  second  period  of  parliamentary  history,  and  formed  no 
part  of  the  constitutional  scheme  of  earlier  days. 

In  Queen  Elizabeth's  time  two  definite  and  distinct  parties 
arose,  the  one  maintaining  the  privileges  of  the  Crown,  the 
other  upholding  the  interests  of  the  people.  In  Stuart  days 
Cavaliers  and  Roundheads  were  followed  by  Court  and 
Country  Parties,  and  in  the  year  1679,  when  the  Exclusion  Bill 
was  being  bitterly  debated,  the  distinctive  names  of  "  Whigs  " 
and  "  Tories "  first  came  into  existence.  "  Whig "  was 
originally  a  word  applied  to  the  lowland  peasantry  of  the 
West  of  Scotland  ;  thence  it  came  to  mean  Covenanters,  and 
so  politicians  who  looked  kindly  upon  Nonconformity. 
"  Tory  "  was  an  expression  popularly  used  with  reference  to 
the  rebel  Irish  outlaws  who  harassed  the  Protestants ;  and 
thus  implied  leanings  towards  Catholicism,  '^ 

The   growth   of  a  respect  for  the  people's  rights  forced 

*  For  example,  one  of  £7000  for  a  retired  Auditor  of  the  Imprest, 
and  another  of /7300  granted  to  Lord  Bute  as  some  slight  compensation 
for  his  loss  of  office.     See  Rose's  "  Influence  of  the  Crown." 

-  "  Gleanings  of  Past  Years,"  vol.  i.  pp.  134-5. 

^  O'Connell  showed  Pryme  an  Irish  Act  of  Parliament  for  the 
suppression  of  "  Rapparees,  Tories,  and  other  Robbers."  Pryme's 
"  Recollections,"  p.  231. 


14  THE  MOTHER  OF  PARLIAMENTS 

politicians  to  separate  into  two  sections,  and  the  schism 
between  the  rival  camps  was  still  further  emphasized  by  the 
Revolution  of  1688.  Regular  opposing  parties  do  not,  how- 
ever^ seem  to  have  existed  in  the  Commons  until  the  eigh- 
teenth century,  and  the  party  system  was  not  finally  established 
as  a  necessary  element  of  constitutional  government  until  the 
reign  of  William  HI.  Kings  had  hitherto  chosen  their 
advisers  irrespective  of  their  political  views.  William  HI. 
was,  however,  induced  by  the  Earl  of  Sunderland  to  form  a 
Ministry  from  the  party  that  held  a  majority  in  Parliament, 
and  thus  became  to  a  certain  extent  controlled  by  that 
party. 

There  have  always  been,  as  Macaulay  says,  under  some 
name  or  other,  two  sets  of  men,  those  who  are  before  their 
age,  and  those  who  are  behind  it,  those  who  are  the  wisest 
among  their  contemporaries,  and  those  who  glory  in  being  no 
wiser  than  their  great-grandfathers.  But  this  definition  of 
the  two  great  political  parties  of  England  can  no  longer  with 
justice  be  applied.  The  Tory  of  to-day  is  not  at  all  the  Tory 
of  two  hundred  years  ago  :  indeed,  he  rather  resembles  the 
Whig  of  Queen  Anne's  time.  And  though  Disraeli  continued 
to  use  the  word  "  Tory,"  and  was  never  ashamed  of  it,  it  has 
now  gradually  fallen  into  disuse,  save  as  a  term  of  reproach 
on  the  lips  of  political  opponents.  A  change  of  nomenclature 
was  adopted  in  1832.  The  Tories  became  Conservatives,  and 
for  the  benefit  of  wavering  Whigs  it  was  proposed  that  the 
latter  should  be  known  as  Liberal-Conservatives,  a  name 
which,  as  Lord  John  Russell  remarked,  expressed  in  seven 
syllables  what  Whig  expressed  in  one.^  The  term  "  Radical  " 
did  not  come  into  use  until  the  days  of  the  famous  reformer, 
Francis  Place  (1771-1854);  his  political  predecessors  con- 
tenting themselves  with  the  more  modest  name  of  Patriots. 

1  A  German  writer,  Herr  Bucher,  wrote  as  follows,  in  1855  : — "  It 
would  be  difficult  to  give  any  other  definition  of  the  two  parties  than  that 
a  Whig  is  a  man  who  is  descended  from  Lord  John  Russell's  grand- 
mother, a  Tory,  one  who  sits  behind  Disraeli."  "  Der  Parliamentarismus 
wie  er  ist,"  p.  152. 


PARLIAMENT  AND   PARTY  15 

Called  by  whatever  name  is  popular  for  the  moment,  either 
party  may  now  claim  to  come  within  the  scope  of  Burke's 
well-known  definition  as  "a  body  of  men  united  for  pro- 
moting, by  their  endeavours,  the  national  interest  upon  some 
particular  principle  in  which  they  are  all  agreed." 

Our  modern  parliamentary  system  comprises  the  party 
spirit  as  its  most  vital  element,  and  owes  its  success  to  the 
fact  of  being  government  by  party  and  not  by  faction.^  The 
existence  of  an  admittedly  constitutional  body  perpetually 
opposed  to  the  Government  of  the  day — "  His  Majesty's 
Opposition,"  as  it  has  been  called  since  1826 — is  now  recog- 
nised as  a  very  necessary  portion  of  the  Parliamentary 
machine.  The  principle  of  fairness  to  the  minority  is  never 
lost  sight  of,  and  expresses  itself  in  many  different  ways. 
When,  for  instance,  the  Leader  of  the  Opposition  gives  notice 
of  a  motion  of  censure  on  the  Government,  the  latter  consider 
it  their  duty^to  accord  their  critics  an  early  opportunity  for  its 
discussion  ;  and,  generally  speaking,  the  due  consideration 
of  the  rights  of  minorities  is  among  the  primary  instincts  of 
party  government.  The  excellent  effects  of  this  system  are 
obvious.  Of  the  two  ways  of  obtaining  political  adherents 
the  attachment  of  party  is  infinitely  preferable  to  the  attach- 
ment of  personal  interest,  formerly  so  prolific  a  source  of 
corruption.  Party  feeling  may  also  be  said  to  have  created 
general  rules  of  politics,  similar  to  a  general  code  of  morals 
by  which  a  man  may  "  walk  with  integrity  along  the  path 
chosen  by  his  chiefs,  surrounded  and  supported  by  his 
political  colleagues." 

Opposition  is  invaluable  as  providing  a  stern  criticism  of 
the  Government's  policy  ;  it  can  also  very  often  be  of  service 
to  the  cause  it  is  intended  to  injure.  It  excites  a  keener 
public  curiosity,  by  directing  attention  to  the  motives  of 
those  whom  it  suspects.  And  "the  reproaches  of  enemies 
when  refuted  are  a  surer  proof  of  virtue  than  the  panegyrics 

*  "  I  have  a  maxim,"  wrote  Horace  Walpole  to  his  friend  Montague 
in  1760,  "  that  the  extinction  of  party  is  the  origin  of  faction."  "  Letters," 
vol.  iii.  370. 


i6  THE   MOTHER  OF  PARLIAMENTS 

of  friends."  ^     That  the  system  must  possess  certain  disad- 
vantages is  inevitable.     It  no  doubt  engenders  animosity  and 
provokes   violent   contentions  :    it   stimulates   politicians   to 
impute  to  their  opponents  corrupt  motives  which  they  could 
not  for  a  moment  imagine  themselves  capable  of  entertaining. 
It  may  also  on  occasion  tempt  them  to  continue  obstinately 
in  the  support  of  wrong,  because  the  admission  of  a  mistake 
would  be  hailed  as  a  triumph  for  their  enemies.     «  The  best 
cause  in  the  world  m^y  be  conducted  into  Faction,"  as  Speaker 
Onslow  said  ;  *'  and  the  best  men  may  become  party  men,  to 
whom  all  things  appear  lawful,  which  make  for  their  cause 
or  their  associates."  ^    But  as  a  rule  the  game  of  politics  is 
played  with  commendable  fairness  and  an  absence  of  undue 
acrimony.     The  Opposition,  whose  well-known  duty  it  is  "  to 
oppose  everything,  to  propose  nothing,  and  to  turn  out  the 
Government,"  ^    rarely   makes    its    attacks    the   vehicle   for 
personal  spite.      Politicians  of  adverse  views  do  not  carry 
their  antagonism  into  private  life,  and  off  the  stage  of  Parlia- 
ment the  bitterest  opponents  are  able  to  exist  upon  amicable 
terms.     Occasionally,  however,  political  differences  have  been 
the   cause  of  ruptured   friendship.      When    Burke   made   a 
violent  attack  upon  Fox,  in    1791,  on  the  Canada  Bill,  he 
declared  that  if  necessary  he  would  risk  the  latter's  lifelong 
friendship  by  his  firm  and  steady  adherence  to  the  British 
Constitution.      Fox  leaned  across  and  whispered  that  there 
was  no  loss  of  friends.     "Yes,"  replied  Burke,  "there  is  a  loss 
of  friends.     I  know  the  price  of  my  conduct.     I  have  done 
my  duty  at  the  price  of  my  friend.     Our  friendship  is  at  an 

^  See  Parr's  "Discourse  on  Education,'  p.  51. 

2  "Anecdotes  and  other  miscellaneous  pieces "  left  by  the  Rt.  Hon. 
Arthur  Onslow.     (From  the  MS.  at  Clandon.) 

'  This  saying  has  often  been  wrongly  attributed  to  Lord  Randolph 
Churchill.  That  statesman's  most  famous  maxim  on  the  subject  of 
Opposition  is  given  in  his  son's  "Life"  (p.  188-9):  "Whenever  by  an 
unfortunate  occurrence  of  circumstances  an  Opposition  is  compelled  to 
support  the  Government,"  said  Lord  Randolph,  "the  support  should  be 
given  with  a  kick  and  not  with  a  caress,  and  should  be  withdrawn  on  the 
first  available  moment." 


PARLIAMENT  AND    PARTY  17 

end  ! "  So  terminated  an  intimacy  of  twenty-five  years' 
standing.  Such  an  incident  may,  nevertheless,  be  considered 
exceptional,  the  relations  of  antagonists  being  usually  of  a 
most  harmonious  kind.  Sir  Robert  Peel  and  Lord  John 
Russell  would  often  be  seen  together  engaged  in  friendly 
conversation.  O'Connell  once  walked  arm  in  arm  down 
Whitehall  with  Hughes  Hughes,  the  member  for  Oxford, 
whose  head  he  had  but  recently  likened  to  that  of  a  calf^ 
And  the  present  Prime  Minister  and  Leader  of  the  Opposi- 
tion are  doubtless  able  to  play  bridge  or  golf  together  without 
actually  coming  to  blows.  In  spite,  therefore,  of  much 
criticism,  what  Emerson  calls  "  that  capital  invention  of 
freedom,  a  constitutional  opposition,"  ^  has  been  found  to  be 
the  most  practical  and  satisfactory  means  of  carrying  on 
government. 

'  This  was  evidently  a  favourite  simile  of  O'Connell's.  He  used  it 
again  with  reference  to  Mr.  Shaw,  member  for  Dublin  University,  in  the 
debate  on  the  resolution  for  giving  a  grant  to  Maynooth  College  for 
the  education  of  Roman  Catholics. 

-'  "  English  Traits,"  p.  46. 


CHAPTER  II 
THE    HOUSE    OF    LORDS 

NO  constitutional  principle  has  been  so  strongly  criti- 
cised and  so  freely  abused  as  the  one  embodied  in 
the  hereditary  chamber  which  forms  so  important  a 
branch  of  our  legislature.  Pulteney  labelled  the  House  of 
Lords  a  "hospital  for  invalids";  Burke  contemptuously 
referred  to  it  as  "  the  weakest  part  of  the  Constitution  "  ;  Lord 
Rosebery  has  compared  it  to  "  a  mediaeval  barque  stranded 
in  the  tideway  of  the  nineteenth  century."  A  more  demo- 
cratic modern  statesman,  who  doubtless  hopes — 

"  To  build,  not  boast,  a  generous  race  ; 
No  tenth  transmitter  of  a  foolish  face," 

has  declared  the  only  legislative  qualifications  of  peers  to 
consist  in  their  being  the  first-born  of  persons  possessing  as 
little  qualifications  as  themselves.  While  another  politician 
cynically  observes  that  they  represent  nobody  but  themselves, 
and  enjoy  the  full  confidence  of  their  constituents. 

The  House  of  Lords  has  long  been  the  butt  of  the 
political  satirist,  and  parliamentary  reformers  have  attacked 
it  for  years  patiently  and  persistently,  hitherto  without  much 
success.  "  We  owe  the  English  Peerage  to  three  sources,"  said 
a  character  in  "  Coningsby  "  ;  "  the  spoliation  of  the  Church  ; 
the  open  and  flagrant  sale  of  its  honours  by  the  elder 
Stuarts ;  and  the  borough-mongering  of  our  own  times." 
And  this  bitter  criticism  is  often  quoted  to  prove  the  weakness 
of  any  form  of  hereditary  government. 

The  suggestion  that  heredity  can  confer  any  peculiar 
qualifications,  rendering  a  person  more  fit  than  his  fellows  for 

i8 


THE   HOUSE   OF   LORDS  19 

parliamentary  power,  is  no  doubt  illogical,  but  not  more 
so  perhaps  than  a  thousand  other  ideas  which  govern  the 
affairs  of  men.  The  form  of  government  by  majority,  for 
instance, — which  Pope  called  "  the  madness  of  the  many 
for  the  gain  of  a  few " — is  obviously  open  to  criticism. 
Hereditary  legislation  has,  at  any  rate  in  the  eyes  of  its 
supporters,  the  merit  of  having  answered  well  enough  in 
practice,  and,  however  theoretically  indefensible,  is  not  more 
so  than  hereditary  kingship.  The  Sovereign  does  not  inherit 
sagacity  any  more  than  the  Duke  of  Norfolk,  as  Lord  John 
Russell  justly  observed,  and  it  would  be  unwise  as  well  as 
unsafe  to  hang  the  Crown  on  the  peg  of  an  exception.  It  is 
as  well,  however,  to  remember  that  the  Sovereign  is  a  consti- 
tutional monarch  whose  powers  nowadays  are  much  restricted, 
whereas  the  Lords  have  the  right  to  exercise  a  legislative 
veto  the  use  of  which  kings  have  long  since  resigned. 

Talent  is  not  hereditary.  No  man  chooses  a  coachman, 
as  the  first  Lord  Halifax  once  remarked,  because  his  father 
was  a  coachman  before  him.  But  the  descendant  of  a  long 
line  of  coachmen  is  likely  to  know  more  about  the  care  of 
horses  than  the  grandson  of  a  pork  butcher,  however  eminent  ; 
and  the  scion  of  a/ace  of  legislators. is  at  least  as  fully  qualified 
for  the  duties  of  a  legislator  as  many  a  politician  whose  chief 
reason  for  entering  Parliament  is  the  desire  to  add  the  letters 
M.P.  to  his  name.  Nevertheless,  as  has  been  recently  pointed 
out  by  tactless  statisticians,  the  great  men  of  the  past  have 
but  seldom  bequeathed  their  admirable  qualities  to  their 
eldest  sons,  and  in  a  list  of  modern  statesmen  will  be  found 
but  few  of  the  names  once  famous  in  English  history. 

The  necessity  for  a  second  chamber  of  some  sort  has 
always  been  admitted,  if  only  to  prevent  the  other  House 
from  being  exposed  to  what  John  Stuart  Mill  calls  "the 
corrupting  influence  of  undivided  power,"  and  Cromwell  "the 
horridest  arbitrariness  that  was  ever  known  in  the  world." 
Few,  however,  of  the  most  ardent  admirers  of  the  hereditary 
system  will  pretend  that  the  problem  of  a  perfect  bicameral 
system  is  solved  by  the  present  House  of  Lords,  though  they 


20  THE   MOTHER   OF   PARLIAMENTS 

may  doubtless  claim  that  the  cause  of  its  failure  does  not  rest 
entirely  upon  its  basis  of  heredity.  "  You  might  as  well  urge 
as  an  objection  to  the  breakwater  that  stems  the  unruly 
waves  of  the  sea,  that  it  has  its  foundations  deep  laid  in 
another  element,  and  that  it  does  not  float  on  the  surface  of 
that  which  it  is  to  control,"  said  Palmerston,  "  as  say  that  the 
House  of  Lords,  being  hereditary,  ought  on  that  account  to 
be  reformed."  ^ 

If  age  can  confer  dignity  and  distinction  upon  any 
assembly,  then  must  the  House  of  Lords  be  peculiarly  dis- 
tinguished, for  it  is  certainly  the  most  venerable  as  well  as 
the  most  antiquated  of  our  Parliamentary  institutions. 

When  Christianity  became  firmly  established  in  England, 
each  king  of  the  Heptarchy  was  attended  by  a  bishop,  whose 
business  it  was  to  advise  his  royal  master  upon  religious 
questions,  and  who  thus  acquired  the  power  of  influencing 
him  in  other  matters  as  well.  The  minor  kings  were  gradually 
replaced  by  earls,  who  were  summoned,  together  with  their 
attendant  bishops,  to  the  Witenagemot  of  the  one  ruling 
sovereign  of  the  country.  An  assembly  of  this  nature  was 
held  as  far  back  as  1086,  but  it  was  more  in  the  nature  of  a 
judicial  Court  than  a  Parliament.  It  consisted  of  the  Arch- 
bishop of  Canterbury  and  all  other  bishops,  earls,  and 
barons,  and  was  summoned  to  decide  important  judicial 
cases.  This  Court,  or  Curia  Regis  as  it  was  called,  met  at 
difierent  times  and  in  divers  places.  It  transacted  other 
business  besides  the  judicial,  and  also  corresponded  to  some 
extent  with  the  more  modern  Icvt^e.  It  was  originally  com- 
posed of  the  Lords,  the  great  ofiicers  of  State,  and  some 
others  whom  the  king  wished  to  consult. 

The  exact  position  which  such  nobles  held  in  the  great 
Council  of  the  land  is  not  very  definite.  Immediately  after 
the  Conquest  an  earldom  appears  to  have  been  regarded  as 
an  office ;  but  it  was  not  necessarily  hereditary.  Later  on 
the  possession  of  lands,  either  granted  direct  by  the  Crown 

'  In  a  speech  delivered  at  a  banquet  in  Glasgow  on  January  13, 
1837. 


THE   HOUSE  OF  LORDS  21 

or  inherited,  became  a  necessary  qualification  for  the  holder 
of  an  earldom.  The  transfer  of  titles  and  property  in  early 
days  was  a  rough  and  ready  affair,  in  which  might  played  as 
great  a  part  as  right.  (When  Edward  I.  required  the  old  Earl 
de  Warrenne  to  produce  his  title  deeds,  the  latter  brought  out 
a  rusty  sword  that  had  belonged  to  his  ancestors.  "  By  this 
instrument  do  I  hold  my  lands,"  he  said,  "  and  by  the  same 
do  I  intend  to  defend  them  ! ")  But  with  the  natural  idea  of 
the  transference  of  land  from  father  to  son  there  developed 
the  principle  of  the  natural  hereditary  descent  of  the  title 
dependent  upon  the  possession  of  those  lands. 

The  baronage  did  not  come  into  existence  until  after 
the  Conquest.  In  the  reign  of  Henry  I.  it  was  entirely  com- 
posed of  foreigners  from  France.  Barons  held  no  regular 
office,  but  their  lands  were  transferred  on  the  hereditary 
principle.  They  owed  military  allegiance  to  the  Crown,  but 
did  not  necessarily  sit  in  Parliament  unless  summoned  to 
attend  by  the  king.  Such  a  summons  was  long  regarded 
as  a  burden  rather  than  a  privilege,  and  even  in  the  days  of 
King  John  the  barons  only  desired  it  as  a  protection  from 
the  imposition  of  some  exceptional  tax.  The  bishops  and 
barons  were  then  the  natural  leaders  of  the  people ;  they 
alone  were  educated  and  armed,  and  they  alone  could 
attempt  any  successful  resistance  to  the  exorbitant  demands 
of  the  Crown.  They  paid  nearly  all  the  taxes,  and  provided 
money  for  the  prosecution  of  every  war.  Upon  them  the 
commonalty  was  dependent,  looking  to  them  for  assistance 
when  the  sovereign  became  too  grasping  or  tyrannical.  It 
was  the  barons  who  forced  King  John  to  sign  Magna  Charta, 
and  to  them,  therefore,  we  are  indebted  for  the  laws  and 
constitution  which  we  now  possess.  "  They  did  not  confine 
it  to  themselves  alone,"  as  Chatham  declared  in  the  House 
of  Lords,  on  January  9,  1770,  "but  delivered  it  as  a 
common  blessing  to  the  whole  people."  But  though  the 
present  House  of  Lords  has  been  described  as  composed  of 
descendants  of  the  men  who  wrung  the  Charter  from  King 
John  on  the  plains  of  Runnymede,  not  more  than  four  of  the 


22  THE  MOTHER  OF  PARLIAMENTS 

existing  peerages  are,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  as  old  as  Magna 
Charta. 

The  feudal  barons  by  tenure,  whose  right  to  a  Parlia- 
mentary summons  gradually  became  hereditary  as  going 
with  their  lands,  were  gradually  joined  by  other  prominent 
men  who,  though  not  landowners,  were  summoned  to  give 
the  Council  the  benefit  of  their  experience  and  advice. 
Thus  gradually  evolved  the  modern  system  of  hereditary 
legislators,  and  the  House  of  Lords  developed  into  an 
assembly  such  as  we  now  know  it,  though  numerically  far 
smaller. 

In  Richard  II. 's  reign  the  Curia  Regis  separated  from 
Parliament  and  became  a  Privy  Council.  The  Lords  were 
then  as  unwilling  as  the  Commons  to  attend  diligently  to 
their  Parliamentary  duties,  and  it  was  only  the  subsequent 
creation  of  dukes,  marquesses,  and  viscounts  that  stimulated 
the  desire  to  sit  and  claim  a  writ  of  summons  as  a  right. 

The  number  of  earls  and  barons  summoned  to  Parliament 
in  the  reigns  of  the  first  three  Edwards  varied  from  fifty  to 
seventy-five.  At  times,  owing  to  the  absence  of  the  fighting 
men  of  the  country  who  were  engaged  in  foreign  warfare,  it 
fell  as  low  as  sixteen.  In  the  first  Parliament  of  Henry  VIII. 
there  were  less  than  thirty  temporal  peers,  but  in  Elizabeth's 
time  this  number  had  doubled.  Since  Stuart  days  the  Lords 
have  become  more  and  more  numerous,  James  I.  granted 
peerages  right  and  left  to  his  favourites,  and,  by  selling 
baronies,  viscountcies,  and  earldoms  for  sums  ranging  from 
;^io,ooo  to  ;^20,ooo,  enriched  his  coffers  and  added  some  fifty 
members  to  the  Upper  House.  The  eighty-two  temporal 
peers  who  sat  in  his  first  Parliament  were  gradually  rein- 
forced by  his  successors,  until,  in  the  time  of  George  III., 
they  numbered  two  hundred  and  twenty-four,  exclusive  of 
their  ecclesiastical  brethren. 

The  Lords  spiritual  have  not  always  sat  in  the  House  of 
Lords.  In  early  days  the  abbots  and  priors  largely  pre- 
dominated in  that  assembly,  but  with  the  abolition  of  the 
monasteries  they  were  banished  from  it,  though  a  certain 


THE   HOUSE   OF   LORDS  23 

number  retained  their  seats  in  right  of  the  baronies  which 
they  possessed.^  Bishops  were  excluded  from  the  House  of 
Lords  by  Act  of  Parliament  in  1640 — Cromwell  omitted  to 
summon  them  to  his  Upper  House  in  1657 — and  were  not 
finally  readmitted  until  1661.  Within  living  memory  several 
unsuccessful  attempts  have  been  made  to  keep  them  out  of 
Parliament.  In  1836  a  member  of  the  Commons  moved  that 
spiritual  peers  be  released  from  attendance,  but  his  motion 
was  defeated.  Another  member  in  the  following  year  sug- 
gested their  exclusion  on  the  ground  that  they  had  plenty  to 
occupy  them  elsewhere,  that  their  contributions  to  debate 
upon  most  legislative  subjects  were  not  particularly  edifying, 
and  that  they  always  voted  with  the  Minister  to  whom  they 
were  indebted  for  preferment.  This  motion  met  a  fate 
similar  to  that  of  its  predecessor,  as  did  another  of  the  same 
kind  in  1870. 

To-day  some  twenty-six  spiritual  peers,  including  the 
two  Archbishops  of  Canterbury  and  York,  are  given  seats 
in  the  House  of  Lords,  where  they  help  to  swell  the  number 
of  that  ever-increasing  assembly. 

Bishops  usually  confine  themselves  exclusively  in  the 
House  of  Lords  to  the  discussion  of  matters  which  concern 
the  spiritual  welfare  of  the  nation.  Their  contributions  to 
debates  are  generally  "edifying,"  and  when  they  happen  to 
cross  swords  with  their  lay  brethren  they  are  well  able  to 
hold  their  own.  Bishop  Atterbury,  of  Rochester,  once  said 
of  a  Bill  before  the  House  that  he  had  often  prophesied  that 
such  a  measure  would  be  brought  up,  and  was  sorry  to  find 
himself  a  true  prophet.  Lord  Coningsby  retorted  that  the 
Right  Reverend  Prelate  had  put  himself  forward  as  a 
prophet,  but  he  would  only  liken  him  to  a  Balaam,  who  was 

'  In  the  sixteenth  century  the  Prior  of  the  Hospital  of  St.  John  of 
Jerusalem  (near  Clerkenwell),  whom  Selden  calls  "  a  kind  of  an  otter,  a 
knight  half-spiritual  and  half-temporal,"  had  precedence  of  all  the  lay- 
barons  in  Parliament.  His  priory  was  suppressed  in  1536,  but  his  name 
continued  to  appear  spasmodically  in  the  Journals  of  the  House  of  Lords 
until  some  time  in  Queen  Elizabeth's  reign. 


24  THE   MOTHER  OF   PARLIAMENTS 

reproved  by  his  own  ass.  The  Bishop  at  once  replied  that 
he  was  well  content  to  be  compared  to  Balaam.  "  But,  my 
Lords,"  he  added,  "  I  am  at  a  loss  to  make  out  the  other  part 
of  the  parallel.  I  am  sure  that  I  have  been  reproved  by 
nobody  but  his  Lordship  !  "  ^ 

With  the  creation  of  new  peerages  by  successive  monarchs 
the  list  of  temporal  peers  lengthened  year  by  year.  The 
Union  of  the  three  kingdoms  still  further  added  to  their 
number.  By  the  Acts  of  Union  with  Scotland  and  Ireland 
it  was  laid  down  that  sixteen  Scottish  and  twenty-eight  Irish 
representative  peers  should  sit  in  the  House  of  Lords.  These 
were  to  be  elected  by  their  fellow-peers,  the  former  for  each 
Parliament,  the  latter  for  life.^  They  may  be  distinguished 
in  other  particulars  as  well,  for  though  a  Scottish  peer  can  at 
any  time  resign  his  seat,  an  Irish  peer  can  never  do  so.  Even 
though  he  be  a  lunatic,  or  otherwise  incapable  of  attending, 
he  still  retains  his  place  in  the  legislature.  He  is  also 
privileged  in  other  ways.  In  1699  the  Commons  resolved 
that  no  peer  could  give  his  vote  at  the  election  of  a  Member 
of  Parliament,  and,  three  years  later,  that  he  could  not 
interfere  in  elections.  To-day  a  standing  order  of  the  House 
of  Commons  imposes  the  same  restraint  upon  all  but  Irish 
peers,  who  are  exempt  from  these  restrictions. 

In  1875  the  House  of  Lords  was  strengthened  judicially 
by  the  introduction  of  four  Lords  of  Appeal.     The  House,  as 

1  Dr.  King's  "  Anecdotes,"  p.  130.  (It  was  a  more  modern  politician 
who,  on  being  reproved  by  an  opponent,  said,  "  Consider  the  case  of 
Balaam's  ass  ;  before  it  spoke  all  men  regarded  it  as  quite  an  ordinary 
quadruped,  but  after  it  had  spoken  they  discovered  what  an  extraordinary 
ass  it  was  !  ") 

-  In  November,  1908,  the  election  of  an  Irish  peer  resulted  in  a  tie 
between  Lords  Ashtown  and  Farnham.  Such  a  thing  had  not  happened 
since  the  Union.  The  difficulty  was  settled  in  a  manner  only  perhaps 
possible  in  an  institution  as  venerable  as  the  House  of  Lords.  In 
accordance  with  the  provisions  of  the  Act  of  Union,  the  Clerk  of  the 
Parliaments  wrote  the  names  of  the  candidates  on  two  pieces  of  paper 
which  he  then  put  into  a  glass.  One  of  these  he  drew  out  at  random, 
and  the  peer  whose  name  was  inscribed  thereon  was  declared  to  be  duly 
elected. 


THE   HOUSE   OF   LORDS  25 

is  well  known,  has  judicial  as  well  as  legislative  functions  to 
perform.  It  has  always  been  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
realm,  and,  ever  since  the  reign  of  Queen  Elizabeth,  the 
ultimate  Appeal  has  lain  to  it  in  all  cases  except  those 
arising  in  Ecclesiastical  Courts.  Moreover,  as  the  High 
Court  of  Parliament,  in  conjunction  with  the  Commons,  it  is 
empowered  to  try  offenders  against  the  State  whom  the 
Commons  have  impeached.  It  also  enjoys  the  privilege  of 
trying  any  of  its  own  members  who  may  be  charged  with 
treason  or  felony,  and  of  determining  any  disputed  claims  of 
peerage  which  may  arise. 

There  have  always  been  a  sufficient  number  of  Lords 
learned  in  the  law  to  provide  a  court  for  the  trial  of  legal 
cases.  In  the  past,  however,  occasions  have  arisen  when 
the  presence  of  lay  peers  has  threatened  to  replace  the 
judicial  aspect  of  the  House  by  a  political  one  which  would 
be  fatal  to  its  reputation  as  a  court  of  appeal.  It  was  not, 
indeed,  until  1845  that  lords  unlearned  in  the  law  began  to 
consider  their  presence  during  the  hearing  of  judicial  causes 
to  be  not  only  unnecessary  but  undesirable,  and  discontinued 
their  attendance.  Thirty  years  later  the  institution  of  four 
life  peerages,  conferred  upon  eminent  lawyers,  added  still 
further  weight  to  the  legal  decisions  of  the  House.  The 
hearing  of  appeals  is  now  left  entirely  to  what  are  called  the 
Law  Lords,  who  consist  of  the  Lord  Chancellor,  a  number  of 
peers  who  have  held  certain  high  judicial  offices,  and  the  four 
Lords  of  Appeal  in  Ordinary — three  of  whom  must,  by  the 
Appellate  Jurisdiction  Act  of  1876,  be  present  on  all  appeal 
cases. 

The  granting  of  life  peerages,  conferring  rights  of 
summons  to  the  House  of  Lords,  save  as  above  stated,  has 
been  adjudged  to  be  beyond  the  powers  of  the  Crown.  It 
may  truly  be  said  that  in  the  first  days  of  Parliament  the 
House  of  Lords  consisted  almost  entirely  of  life  members. 
But  when  the  Government  of  Queen  Victoria  attempted  to 
revive  a  practice  that  had  lain  in  abeyance  for  some  centuries 
they  were  not  allowed  to  do  so. 


26  THE   MOTHER  OF   PARLIAMENTS 

The  Supreme  Court  of  Appeal  had  been  violently  attacked 
in  the  Commons,  where  certain  members  declared  it  to  be 
inferior  to  any  tribunal  in  the  land.  Palmerston  in  1856 
determined  to  remedy  its  defects  by  the  addition  of  two  Law 
Lords  who  should  be  life  peers.  This  scheme  was  upheld  by 
the  Lord  Chancellor,  Lord  Cranworth,  but  met  with  determined 
opposition  in  the  Upper  House.  The  Law  Lords  were 
especially  opposed  to  it,  fearing  that,  if  such  a  precedent  were 
allowed,  no  lawyer  in  the  future  would  ever  be  given  an 
hereditary  peerage.  On  the  Premier's  recommendation  the 
Queen  proposed  to  confer  life  peerages  upon  two  distin- 
guished lawyers,  Parke  and  Pemberton  Leigh,  and  proceeded 
to  issue  a  patent  to  the  former,  creating  him  Baron  Wensley- 
dale  for  life.  When,  however,  the  matter  was  referred  to  the 
Committee  for  Privileges,  they  decided  that  no  life  peer 
could  either  sit  or  vote  in  the  House  of  Lords,  and  the 
Wensleydale  and  Kingsdown  peerages  had  consequently  to 
be  made  hereditary. 

Persons  who  are  raised  to  the  peerage  to-day  are  made 
peers  of  the  United  Kingdom.  No  Scotch  peer  has  been 
created  since  the  Union  in  1707,  and  the  right  of  conferring 
an  Irish  peerage  which  existed  under  certain  restrictions  in 
the  Act  of  Union  has  ceased  to  be  exercised  except  upon  one 
notable  recent  occasion.' 

During  the  last  fifty  years  some  one  hundred  and  fifty 
additions  have  been  made  to  the  membership  of  the  House 
of  Lords.  The  only  limit  to  the  numerical  increase  of  peers 
would  seem  to  lie  in  the  good  sense  of  the  Prime  Minister  or 
the  patience  of  the  Sovereign.  It  is  of  course  the  latter  who 
confers  peerages,  though  as  the  former  usually  brings  suitable 
candidates  for  ennoblement  to  the  royal  notice,  he  is  generally 
held  responsible  for  the  result  of  his  recommendations.^ 

^  Lord  Curzon  of  Kedleston  was  so  created  in  189S. 

^  When  the  last  Liberal  Government  of  Queen  Victoria  came  into 
office  the  Court  officials  were  discussing  the  new  Administration  one  day 
at  Windsor,  "  I  wonder  what  peers  they'll  make,"  remarked  one  of  the 
ladies-in-waiting.    The  Queen  turned  upon  her  with  uplifted  eyebrows. 


THK    HOUSE   OF    LORDS    IX    1712 

FROM    AN    ENGRAVING    BY  JOHN    PINE 


THE   HOUSE   OF   LORDS  27 

The  House  of  Lords  now  includes  some  616  members, 
divided,  as  we  have  seen,  into  four  classes  ;  the  Lords 
Spiritual,  the  Lords  Temporal — Princes  of  the  Blood,  Dukes, 
Marquesses,  Earls,  Viscounts,  Barons — the  Representative 
Peers  of  Scotland  and  Ireland,  and  the  Lords  of  Appeal  in 
Ordinary. 

The  writ  of  summons,  which  did  not  cease  to  be  regarded 
as  a  burden  until  the  reign  of  Edward  II.,  is  now  looked  upon 
as  a  privilege  and  right  which  iew  peers  would  willingly  forego. 
And  the  question  of  mutual  precedence  which  was  never 
mooted  until  the  creation  of  Viscounts  in  Henry  VI.'s  time, 
is  now  a  matter  of  the  utmost  importance  to  the  occupants  of 
the  Gilded  Chamber. 

The  first  Parliament  that  is  recognized  as  conferring 
the  right  of  peerage  was  that  of  the  eleventh  year  of 
Edward  I.  The  Lords  decided,  in  the  recent  case  of  Lord 
Stourton  claiming  the  Barony  of  Mowbray,  that  a  writ 
summoning  a  peer  to  this  Parliament,  followed  by  a  sitting, 
gave  his  descendants  a  scat  in  the  House. 

All  Peers  of  the  Realm — a  phrase  which  came  into  use  in 
1322 — are  entitled  to  seats  in  the  House  of  Lords  once  they 
have  attained  their  majority.  Infancy  disqualifies  a  peer 
from  receiving  a  writ  of  summons  ;  failure  to  take  the  oath 
or  to  affirm  deprives  him  of  the  right  of  sitting.  No  alien 
may  sit  in  the  Lords,  nor  may  a  bankrupt  or  a  felon,  and  the 
House  as  a  Court  of  Justice  may  at  any  time  pass  sentence 
disqualifying  a  peer  from  sitting. 

The  functions  of  the  Upper  House  which  have  been  the 
subject  of  so  much  recent  controversy  and  are  still  engrossing 
the  attention  of  Parliament  and  the  public,  have  been  in  former 
times  variously  defined  by  friendly  or  adverse  critics.     The 

"  They  r''  she  exclaimed.  An  uncomfortable  silence  ensued.  Again,  in 
1909,  a  Cabinet  Minister's  allusion  in  a  speech  to  certain  newspaper 
proprietors  whom  a  Conservative  Prime  Minister  had  "  taken  the 
precaution  to  make  into  barons  "  inspired  the  King's  private  Secretary  to 
write  a  letter  to  a  correspondent  in  which  he  stated  that,  notwithstanding 
the  Minister's  statement,  "the  creation  of  Peers  remains  a  Royal 
prerogative." 


28  THE   MOTHER  OF   PARLIAMENTS 

Lords  have  been  described  as  the  brake  on  the  parliamentary 
wheel  or  as  the  clog  in  the  parliamentary  machine.  Horace 
Walpole  wrote  some  bitter  verses  on  the  subject  of  that 
House  whose  members  "  sleep  in  monumental  state,  to  show 
the  spot  where  their  great  Fathers  sate  ; " 

"Thou  senseless  Hall,  whose  injudicious  space, 
Like  Death,  confounds  a  various  mismatched  race, 
Where  Kings  and  clowns,  th'  ambitious  and  the  mean, 
Compose  th'  inactive  soporific  scene."  ' 

Peers  themselves  no  doubt  regard  the  Upper  Chamber 
as  a  haven  where  merit  may  receive  its  ultimate  reward  ; 
where  the  achievements  and  the  recompense  of  the  deserving 
are  suitably  immortalized.  As  a  "  compact  bulwark  against 
the  temporary  violence  of  popular  passion,"  to  use  Disraeli's 
phrase,  and  as  a  council  for  weighing  the  resolutions  of  the 
Commons  who  may  at  times  be  led  away  by  public  clamour 
or  a  sudden  impulse,  the  Second  Chamber  is  regarded  by 
its  defenders  as  of  the  greatest  constitutional  value.  Lord 
Salisbury  once  declared  that  the  chief  duty  of  the  House  of 
Lords  was  to  represent  the  permanent  as  opposed  to  the 
passing  feelings  of  the  English  nation  ;  "  to  interpose  a  salutary 
obstacle  to  rash  or  inconsiderate  legislation  ;  and  to  protect 
the  people  from  the  consequences  of  their  own  imprudence." 
Moreover,  the  Upper  House  thus  has  an  opportunity  of 
improving  the  details  of  measures,  many  of  which  leave  the 
House  of  Commons  in  an  unworkable  shape,  owing  to  the 
conditions  under  which  they  are  amended  and  passed  through 
it,  and,  but  for  the  alterations  effected  by  the  Lords,  would 
remain  unworkable  when  they  came  to  be  embodied  in  the 
Statute-book. 

It  has  never  been  the  course  of  the  Upper  House  to  resist 
a  continued  and  deliberately  expressed  public  opinion.  The 
Lords,  as  Lord  Derby  affirmed  in  1846,  "always  have  bowed 
and  always  will   bow,  to  the  expression  of  such  opinion."  - 

'  "  Letters  to  Sir  H.  Mann,"  vol.  i.  p.  380. 

"'  On  the  Second  Reading  of  the  Com  Importation  Bill,  May  25, 1846. 


THE   HOUSE   OF   LORDS  29 

But  although  history  to  a  certain  extent  bears  out  this 
statement,  on  more  than  one  occasion  the  hand  of  popular 
clamour  has  battered  at  their  doors  for  a  long  time  before 
wringing  from  them  a  reluctant  acquiescence.  There  can  be 
no  doubt  that  if  the  country  were  to  express  itself  definitely 
upon  any  question  at  a  General  Election,  no  House  of  Lords 
would  be  strong  enough  (or  weak  enough)  to  attempt  to 
thwart  the  public  will.  But  there  have  been  numerous 
instances  in  which  the  peers  have  endeavoured  without 
success  to  do  so.  In  vain  did  they  delay  Parliamentary 
Reform  in  1831,  when  Sidney  Smith  Hkened  the  House  of 
Lords  to  Mrs.  Partington,  the  old  lady  of  Sidmouth  who, 
during  the  great  storm  of  1824,  tried  to  push  away  the 
Atlantic  with  her  mop.^  In  vain  did  they  inveigh  against 
the  passing  of  the  Jewish  Oaths  Bill  or  the  Bill  for  the 
abolition  of  the  Corn  Laws.  They  were  eventually  compelled 
to  pass  the  latter,  not  because  they  thought  it  a  good  Bill, 
but  because,  as  the  Duke  of  Wellington  said,  it  had  passed 
the  House  of  Commons  by  a  huge  majority,  and  "the  Queen's 
Government  must  be  supported." 

On  the  other  side  it  may  be  said  that  they  have 
occasionally  interpreted  more  successfully  than  the  Lower 
House  the  views  of  the  electorate,  and  of  this  perhaps  the 
rejection  of  the  Home  Rule  Bill  of  1893  is  the  most 
prominent  example. 

Even  without  actually  rejecting  Bills  the  Lords  have 
frequently  opposed  the  will  of  the  Commons  by  returning 
the  Bills  sent  up  to  them  in  so  amended  and  altered  a  shape 
as  to  prove  wholly  unacceptable  ;  and  an  appeal  to  the  country 
upon  every  point  of  difference,  or  even  upon  every  Bill  wholly 
rejected,  is  of  course  impracticable. 

In  some  such  cases  the  Commons  have  had  recourse  to 
a  method  of  coercing  the  Lords,  known  by  the  name  of 
"  tacking,"  which  depends  for  its  efficacy  upon  the  acceptation 
of  certain  doctrines  relating  to  Money  Bills  laid  down  by  the 

'  "  Works,"  p.  564. 


30  THE   MOTHER  OF   PARLIAMENTS 

Commons  at  intervals  during  the  last  three  centuries,  and  in 
the  main  acquiesced  in  by  the  Lords, 

The  history  of  the  matter,  though  of  acute  interest  at  the 
present  time,  is  too  long  to  go  into  here.  It  will  be  sufficient 
to  mention  that  in  1678,  as  the  result  of  a  violent  struggle 
between  the  two  Houses,  the  Commons  passed  Resolutions 
asserting  (not  for  the  first  time)  that  all  Money  Bills  must 
have  their  origin  in  the  Lower  House,  and  that  the  Hereditary 
Chamber  is  powerless  to  amend  them.  And  though  the 
Lords  at  the  time  protested  against  both  these  conclusions, 
by  their  action  through  a  long  course  of  years  they  must  be 
taken  to  have  acquiesced  in  them.  If,  then,  the  Lords  were 
unable  to  amend  a  Money  Bill,  they  might  be  compelled  to 
accept  an  obnoxious  measure  of  a  different  nature  if  it  were 
included  in  such  a  Bill,  the  whole  of  which  they  would  be 
loth  to  throw  out.  This  was  the  process  adopted  in  several 
instances  by  the  Commons,  against  which  the  Lords  passed, 
in  1702,  a  Standing  Order  declaring  the  "  annexing  any 
foreign  matter  "  to  be  "  unparh'amentary  and  tending  to  the 
destruction  of  the  Constitution." 

In  1770  the  Commons  brought  in  a  Bill  to  annul  the 
royal  grants  of  forfeited  property,  and,  knowing  that  it 
would  be  objectionable  to  the  Upper  House,  cunningly 
tacked  it  on  to  a  Money  Bill.  The  Lords  returned  it,  with 
the  foreign  matter  excised  ;  but  it  was  sent  back  to  them 
once  more,  and,  acting  on  the  advice  of  the  Duke  of 
Marlborough  who  counselled  concession,  they  eventually 
swallowed  the  whole  mixture  as  gracefully  as  they  could 
find  it  in  their  hearts  to  do.  In  i860,  the  two  Houses  came 
into  collision  again  on  the  same  subject,  when  the  Lords 
threw  out  the  Bill  abolishing  the  duty  on  paper,  which  was 
a  financial  question.  Gladstone  retorted  in  the  following 
year  by  tacking  this  Bill  on  to  the  Budget,  and  in  this  shape 
the  Lords  passed  it.  But  their  right  of  rejection — which 
indeed  is  involved  in  the  necessity  for  their  assent  to  every 
Bill — was  never  questioned,  either  in  1678  or  since,  until  the 
Budget  Bill  was  thrown  out  in  December,  1909,  when  the 


THE   HOUSE   OF   LORDS  31 

whole  question  of  the  relations  between  the  two  Houses 
was  brought  into  vital  prominence  and  made  the  subject  of 
an  agitation  not  easily  to  be  assuaged. 

There  has  always  existed  a  spirit  of  antagonism  between 
the  two  Houses.  Gladstone  declared  that  the  Commons  were 
eyed  by  the  Lords  "  as  Lancelot  was  eyed  by  Modred,"  and  this 
mutual  antipathy  has  occasionally  expressed  itself  in  overt 
acts  of  rudeness.  During  a  debate  in  the  Lords  in  1770,  on 
the  defenceless  state  of  the  nation,  a  peer  moved  that  the 
House  be  cleared  of  strangers.  A  number  of  the  Commons 
happened  to  be  standing  at  the  Bar,  but,  notwithstanding 
their  protests,  they  were  unceremoniously  hustled  out,  being 
followed  by  a  volley  of  hisses  and  jeers  as  they  left  the 
Chamber.  The  Duke  of  Richmond  and  many  other  peers 
were  so  disgusted  at  this  exhibition  of  ill-feeling  that  they 
walked  out  of  the  House.  Colonel  Barrc  has  left  a  graphic 
description  of  the  scene.  The  Lords,  he  says,  developed  all 
the  passions  and  violence  of  a  mob.  "  One  of  the  heads  of 
this  mob — for  there  were  two — was  a  Scotchman.  I  heard 
him  call  out  several  times,  '  Clear  the  Hoose  !  Clear  the 
Hoose  ! '  The  face  of  the  other  was  scarcely  human  ;  for  he 
had  contrived  to  put  on  a  nose  of  enormous  size,  that  dis- 
figured him  completely,  and  his  eyes  started  out  of  his  head 
in  so  frightful  a  way  that  he  seemed  to  be  undergoing  the 
operation  of  being  strangled."  ^ 

Two  years  after  this  scene,  in  1772,  Burke  was  kept 
waiting  for  three  hours  with  a  Bill  which  he  was  carrying  from 
the  Commons  to  the  Lords.  When  he  subsequently  reported 
his  ill-treatment  to  the  Lower  House,  their  indignation  knew 
no  bounds,  and  they  proceeded  to  revenge  themselves  in  a 
somewhat  puerile  manner.  The  very  next  Bill  that  the 
House  of  Lords  sent  down  to  them  was  rejected  unanimously, 
and  the  Speaker  threw  the  offensive  measure  on  to  the  floor 

^  The  peer  in  question  had  not  donned  a  false  nose  for  the  occasion, 
as  might  be  imagined,  but  was  merely  wearing  the  ordinary  work- 
ing nose  of  aristocratic  proportions  with  which  Providence  had  supplied 
him. 


32  THE   MOTHER  OF  PARLIAMENTS 

of  the  House,  whence  it  was  kicked  to  the  door  by  a  number 
of  indignant  members. 

It  is  not  difficult  to  understand  the  cause  of  jealousy  and 
anger  between  the  Houses,  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  so  many 
of  the  Lords  have  at  one  time  or  another  been  members  of 
the  Commons,  and  so  many  of  the  Commons  hope  to  end 
their  days  in  the  Lords.  (Croker,  in  a  letter  to  Lord 
Hatherton,  recalls  a  visit  he  paid  as  a  stranger  to  the 
Upper  House  in  1857,  where,  of  the  thirty  peers  present, 
there  was  not  one  but  had  sat  with  him  in  the  Commons, 
including  the  Duke  of  Wellington  and  the  Lord  Chancellor. 
"  It  shows,"  he  says,  "how completely  the  House  of  Commons 
has  been  the  nursery  of  the  House  of  Lords."  ^)  The  resent- 
ment against  the  Lords  that  undoubtedly  exists  in  the  bosoms 
of  the  Commons,  which  is  not  confined  to  one  side  of  the 
House,  but  seems  to  be  universal,  results  from  the  power  of 
rejection  which  the  peers  can  at  any  time  exercise  with  regard 
to  a  measure,  or  of  making  amendments  by  which  they  can 
alter  it  out  of  all  recognition,  thus  nullifying  in  a  single  day 
the  labours  of  months  in  the  Lower  House.  And  when  it 
is  considered  that  this  ruinous  result  is  due  not  only  to  men 
who  owe  their  seats  to  their  successful  exertions  in  various 
professions,  but  also  in  larger  proportion  to  those  who  owe 
them  to  being,  as  Lord  Thurlow  said  of  the  Duke  of  Grafton, 
"  the  accident  of  an  accident,"  "  the  situation  must  to  many 
minds  appear  wholly  intolerable. 

One  very  clear  cause  of  failure  in  the  House  of  Lords  to 
give  satisfaction  lies  in  the  fact  that,  although  government 
by  Party  is  the  very  groundwork  of  the  parliamentary 
constitution,  as  far  as  the  Upper  House  is  concerned  such 
an  idea  might  just  as  well  not  exist  at  all.  Whatever  the 
political  complexion  of  the  party  in  power  in  the  House  of 

'  Croker's  "  Letters,"  vol.  i.  p.  85. 

2  One  is  reminded  of  the  reply  addressed  by  the  Emperor  Alexander 
to  Madame  de  Stael  who  was  complimenting  Russia  on  possessing  so 
able  a  ruler.  "Alas,  Madame,"  he  said,  "  I  am  nothing  but  a  happy 
accident  ! " 


THE   HOUSE  OF  LORDS  33 

Commons,  the  Lords  maintain  an  invariable  Conservative 
majority,  indifferent  to  the  swing  of  any  popular  pendulum, 
and  as  fixed  and  unalterable  as  the  sun.  But  at  no  time  for 
the  last  century  has  the  inequality  been  so  marked  as  at 
present,  when  it  may  be  truthfully  said  that  the  Liberal 
peers  would  scarcely  fill  a  dozen  "  hackney  coaches,"  ^  And 
though  the  Liberal  party  has  created  a  considerable  number 
of  peers  during  the  last  few  years,  it  has  never  recovered  from 
the  secession  of  Liberal  Unionists,  and  it  would  take  many 
years  of  Liberal  supremacy  and  large  drafts  upon  the  Pre- 
rogative of  the  Crown  to  restore  even  the  comparative 
balance  of  early  Victorian  days. 

This  may  or  may  not  be  an  advantage,  for  though  the 
staunch  Tory  is  tempted  to  exclaim  in  the  words  of  Disraeli  : 
"  Thank  God  there  is  a  House  of  Lords  ! "  the  equally  staunch 
Radical  is  scarcely  likely  to  consider  the  existence  of  this  per- 
petually antagonistic  majority  a  sufficient  cause  for  gratitude 
towards  the  Almighty.  The  difficulty  of  equalising  the  parties 
seems  insurmountable,  so  long  as  ennoblement  is  an  expensive 
luxury  and  Peers  continue  to  be  drawn  from  the  wealthy 
classes.^  There  is,  too,  something  essentially  Conservative 
about  the  atmosphere  of  the  House  of  Lords,  which  sooner 
or  later  impregnates  the  blood  of  its  inmates ;  under  its 
influence  the  Liberal  of  one  generation   rapidly  exhibits  a 

»  At  the  time  of  the  French  Revolution,  the  country  supported  the 
Government  so  strongly  that  the  Opposition  dwindled  away  to  nothing. 
It  was  even  jestingly  asserted  that  the  Whigs  could  all  have  been  held 
in  one  hackney  coach.  "  This  is  a  calumny,"  said  George  Byng  ;  "  we 
should  have  filled  two  ! "  Campbell's  "  Lives  of  the  Chancellors,"  vol.  v. 
p.  614. 

2  It  is  suggested  that  the  balance  of  party  could  be  adjusted  by  the 
Government  persuading  the  Crown  to  create  a  number  of  peerages 
sufficient  to  flood  the  House  with  peers  of  their  particular  political 
persuasion.  In  17 12,  Queen  Anne  was  prevailed  upon  to  create  twelve 
peers  in  a  single  day,  in  order  to  pass  a  Government  measure.  "  If  these 
twelve  had  not  been  enough,"  said  Bolingbroke,  "  we  could  have  given 
them  another  dozen  ! "  William  IV.  was  prepared  to  create  a  hundred 
new  peers  to  ensure  the  passing  of  the  Reform  Bill  of  1832.  It  remains 
to  be  seen  whether  such  an  idea  is  nowadays  practicable. 

D 


34  THE  MOTHER  OF   PARLIAMENTS 

tendency  to  develop  into  the  Conservative  of  the  next.  But 
this  charge  is  no  doubt  one  which  may  be  brought  with  more 
or  less  truth  against  any  Second  Chamber,  however  constituted, 
which  is  composed  of  men  of  a  certain  age  and  position, 
not  immediately  responsible  to  the  fluctuating  voices  of  the 
people.  Whether  one  considers  such  stability  to  be  a  merit 
or  the  reverse  depends  upon  whether  one  adopts  Lord 
Palmerston's  and  Lord  Salisbury's  views  of  the  functions 
of  a  Senate,  or  regards  it  merely  as  a  useful  and  select  body 
of  legislators  enjoying  certain  limited  powers  of  criticism  and 
delay. 

So  much  has  been  written  about  this  great  modern  con- 
troversy, that  it  is  unnecessary  to  increase  the  literature 
which  exists  upon  both  sides.  The  issue  seems  to  lie  between 
reducing  the  Second  Chamber  to  comparative  impotence 
or  attempting  by  judicious  reforms  in  its  composition  to 
bring  it  into  greater  sympathy  with  the  First  Chamber. 

The  Resolutions  recently  passed  by  the  Commons,^  have 

1  "  I,  That  it  is  expedient  that  the  House  of  Lords  be  disabled  by 
Law  from  rejecting  or  amending  a  Money  Bill,  but  that  any  such  limitation 
by  Law  shall  not  be  taken  to  diminish  or  qualify  the  existing  rights  and 
privileges  of  the  House  of  Commons. 

"  For  the  purpose  of  this  Resolution  a  Bill  shall  be  considered  a 
Money  Bill  if,  in  the  opinion  of  the  Speaker,  it  contains  only  provisions 
dealing  with  all  or  any  of  the  following  subjects,  namely,  the  imposition, 
repeal,  remission,  alteration,  or  regulation  of  taxation  ;  Charges  on  the 
Consolidated  Pounds  or  the  provision  of  Money  by  Parliament  ;  Supply  ; 
the  appropriation,  control,  or  regulation  of  public  money  ;  the  raising  or 
guarantee  of  any  loan  or  the  repayment  thereof;  or  matters  incidental  to 
those  subjects  or  any  of  them." 

"  2.  That  it  is  expedient  that  the  powers  of  the  House  of  Lords,  as 
respects  Bills  other  than  Money  Bills,  be  restricted  by  Law,  so  that  any 
such  Bill  which  has  passed  the  House  of  Commons  in  three  successive 
Sessions,  and,  having  been  sent  up  to  the  House  of  Lords  at  least  one 
month  before  the  end  of  the  Session,  has  been  rejected  by  that  House  in 
each  of  those  sessions,  shall  become  Law  without  the  consent  of  the 
House  of  Lords  on  the  Royal  Assent  being  declared  ;  Provided  that  at 
least  two  years  shall  have  elapsed  between  the  date  of  the  first  introduc- 
tion of  the  Bill  in  the  House  of  Commons  and  the  date  on  which  it 
passes  the  House  of  Commons  for  the  third  time. 

"  For  the   purposes  of  this  Resolution   a    Bill  shall  be  treated    as 


THE   HOUSE   OF   LORDS  35 

for  their  object  the  complete  annihilation  of  the  latter  in  all 
matters  of  finance,  and  the  retention  for  them  of  such 
modified  powers  of  influencing  other  legislation  as  would 
enable  them  to  delay  Bills  during  the  early  years  of  a 
shortened  Parliament,  and  refer  them  to  the  country  during 
its  last  two  years.  The  question  of  "tacking,"  in  Money 
Bills,  is  to  be  referred  to  the  sole  arbitrament  of  the 
Speaker  ;  but  this  becomes  of  trifling  importance  when  it  is 
argued  that  almost  any  revolutionary  change  could  be 
effected  within  the  corners  of  a  legitimate  financial  measure. 
The  objection  taken  to  the  overriding  of  the  Veto  in  the 
case  of  a  Bill  thrice  presented,  is  that  it  amounts  to  one- 
Chamber  legislation  and  would  result  in  two  classes  of  Acts 
— one  passed  by  the  Commons  alone,  and  the  other  by  both 
Houses. 

The  policy  of  Reform,  on  the  other  hand,  is  unacceptable 
to  those  who  desire  the  predominance  of  the  First  Chamber, 
as  any  successful  scheme  for  removing  present  defects  in  the 
constitution  of  the  Lords — e.g.  the  excessive  size  of  the  House, 
the  preponderance  therein  of  one  party,  and  the  presence 
of  undesirable  members — must  result  in  its  increased  strength 
and  importance.  Consequently  the  Commons  have  neither 
made  nor  encouraged  any  attempts  in  that  direction. 

Such  suggestions  as  have  taken  any  shape  have  been 
proposed  by  the  Lords  themselves,  and  the  history  of  the 
last  thirty  years  exhibits  many  internal  efforts  to  reform 
on  the  part  of  those  dissatisfied  with  the  ancient  constitution 
of  the  House.  \\\  1884,  Lord  Rosebery's  motion  for  a  Select 
Committee  to  consider  the  best  means  of  promoting  the 
efficiency  of  the  House  of  Lords,  was  negatived.  Four  years 
later  he  moved  for  another  Select  Committee  to  inquire 
into  the  Constitution  of  the  House.     In  the  same  year   an 

rejected  by  the  House  of  Lords  if  it  has  not  been  passed  by  the  House  of 
Lords  either  without  Amendment  or  with  such  Amendments  only  as  may 
be  agreed  upon  by  both  Houses." 

"3.  That  it  is  expedient  to  limit  the  duration  of  Parliament  to  five 
years." 


36  THE   MOTHER   OF   PARLIAMENTS 

elaborate  Bill  of  Lord  Dunraven's  for  reforming  the  Lords 
was  rejected,  and  another,  promoted  by  Lord  Salisbury,  was 
withdrawn  after  having  passed  the  second  reading.  In  1908 
a  committee  met,  under  the  chairmanship  of  Lord  Rosebery, 
to  look  into  the  whole  question,  and  issued  a  most  interesting 
and  practical  report,  full  of  admirable  recommendations.  This 
committee  began  by  pointing  out  the  expediency  of  reducing 
the  numbers  of  an  assembly  which,  within  recent  years  has 
increased  to  such  an  extent  as  to  render  itself  too  unwieldy 
for  legislative  purposes.  It  strongly  urged  that  the  recom- 
mendations to  the  Crown  foi*  the  creation  of  hereditary 
peerages  should  be  restricted  within  somewhat  narrower 
limits.  Many  peers,  as  the  report  explained,  are  obviously 
ill-suited  to  their  Parliamentary  duties  ;  others  find  the 
work  irksome  and  distasteful ;  of  a  few  it  may  euphe- 
mistically be  observed  that  their  release  from  the  burden 
of  legislative  responsibilities  would  be  eminently  desirable. 
Lord  Rosebery's  committee  therefore  came  to  the  conclusion 
that  the  dignity  of  a  peer  and  the  dignity  of  a  Lord  of 
Parliament  should  be  separate  and  distinct,  and  that, 
except  in  the  case  of  peers  of  the  Blood  Royal,  the 
possession  of  a  peerage  should  not  necessarily  be  attended 
with  the  right  to  sit  and  vote  in  the  House  of  Lords. 
A  further  suggestion  was  made  that  the  hereditary  peers 
should  be  represented  by  two  hundred  of  their  number, 
elected  by  them  to  sit  as  Lords  of  Parliament,  not  for  life, 
but  for  each  parliament,  and  that  the  number  of  Spiritual 
Peers  should  be  proportionately  reduced  to  ten.  The 
inclusion  of  representatives  from  the  Colonies,  and  the 
granting  of  a  writ  of  summons  to  a  number  of  qualified 
persons  who  had  held  high  office  in  the  State,  figured 
prominently  in  this  scheme  of  reform. 

Following  up  these  recommendations,  the  House  on  the 
motion  of  Lord  Rosebery  has  recently  adopted  the  following 
resolutions  for  its  own  reconstitution  : — 

"(i)  That  a  strong  and  efficient  Second  Chamber  is  not 
merely  an  integral  part  of  the  British  Constitution, 


THE   HOUSE   OF  LORDS  37 

but  is  necessary  to  the  well-being  of  the  State  and 

to  the  balance  of  Parliament. 
"  (2)  That  such  a  Chamber  can  best  be  obtained  by  the 

reform  and  reconstitution  of  the  House  of  Lords. 
"(3)  That  a  necessary  preliminary  of  such  reform  and 

reconstitution  is  the  acceptance  of  the  principle 

that  the  possession  of  a  peerage  should  no  longer 

of  itself  give  the  right  to  sit  and  vote  in  the  House 

of  Lords."  ^ 
We  are  sometimes  tempted  nowadays  to  laugh,  like  "  the 
gardener  Adam  and  his  wife,"  at  the  claims  of  long  descent. 
But  the  pride  of  birth  and  blood  is  common  to  all  nations, 
perhaps  less  so  in  England  than  elsewere.  The  French  ducal 
family  of  Levis  boasted  a  descent  from  the  princes  of  Judah, 
and  would  produce  an  old  painting  in  which  one  of  their 
ancestors  was  represented  as  bowing,  hat  in  hand,  to  the 
Virgin,  who  was  saying,  *'  Couvrez-vous,  mon  cousin ! " 
Similarly  the  family  of  Cory  possessed  a  picture  of  Noah 
with  one  foot  in  the  ark,  exclaiming,  "  Sauvez  les  papiers  de 
la  maison  de  Cory  !  "  ^  Byron  is  said  to  have  been  prouder 
of  his  pedigree  than  of  his  poems,  and  it  is  to  be  hoped  that 
our  aristocracy  will  never  entirely  forget  that  their  ancestors 
have  handed  down  to  them  traditions  which  are  more  precious 
than  the  titles  and  lands  by  which  they  are  represented. 

One  cannot  altogether  relish  the  sight  of  several  peers, 
who  had  been  considered  incompetent  to  manage  their  own 
affairs,  hastening  to  Westminster  at  the  call  of  a  party 
"  Whip  "  to  record  their  votes  upon  Imperial  concerns  of  the 

*  The  following  further  Resolutions  stand  upon  the  Notice  Paper  and 
still  await  consideration  : — 

"  (i)  That  in  future  the  House  of  Lords  shall  consist  of  Lords  of  Par- 
liament :  A.  Chosen  by  the  whole  body  of  hereditary  peers  from  among 
themselves  and  by  nomination  by  the  Crown.  B.  Sitting  by  virtue  of 
offices  and  of  qualifications  held  by  them.     C.  Chosen  from  outside. 

"  (2)  That  the  term  of  tenure  for  all  Lords  of  Parliament  shall  be  the 
same,  except  in  the  case  of  those  who  sit  ex-officio,  who  would  sit  so  long 
as  they  held  the  office  for  which  they  sit." 

"^  Hay  ward's  "  Essays,"  p.  305. 


428048 


38  THE   MOTHER   OF   PARLIAMENTS 

greatest  importance.  And  though  it  must  be  admitted  that 
it  is  rare  indeed  for  the  incompetent  or  degenerate  members 
of  the  Upper  House  to  take  any  part  in  its  deh'berations,  the 
fact  that  they  have  the  undoubted  right  to  do  so  scarcely 
tends  to  enhance  the  respect  in  which  that  assembly  is 
popularly  held.  In  spite,  however,  of  the  occasional  presence 
of  "undesirables,"  it  is  generally  acknowledged  that  if  any 
question  arises  requiring  a  display  of  more  than  ordinary 
knowledge  of  history,  or  more  practical  wisdom  or  learn- 
ing, these  can  nowhere  be  found  so  well  as  in  the  Upper 
House.  There,  too,  the  level  of  oratory  and  of  common 
.sense  is  perceptibly  higher  than  in  the  popular  assembly. 
But  the  Reform  Bill  of  1832  enabled  the  Commons  to  speak 
in  the  name  of  the  people,  which  they  had  never  hitherto 
done,  and  which  the  Lords  cannot  do,  and  thus  created  that 
wide  gulf  which  now  separates  them  from  the  House  of 
I>ord.s.  Here,  however,  as  well  as  there,  are  many  men  who 
realise  that,  in  the  words  of  Lord  Rosebery,  they  have  a 
great  heritage,  "  their  own  honour,  and  the  honour  of  their 
ancestors,  and  of  their  posterity,  to  guard."  * 

'  Hansard,  vol,  289,  p,  057  (1884). 


CHATTER    III 

THE    HOUSE    OF   COMMONS 

THE  Witenagemot,  as  we  have  already  seen,  was 
essentially  an  aristocratic  assembly.  The  populace 
sometimes  attended  its  meetings,  but«  beyond  ex- 
pressing their  feelings  by  shouts  of  approval,  took  no  part  in 
its  deliberations.  For  many  >*ears  after  the  Conquest  the 
People  continued  to  be  unrepresented  in  the  Great  Council 
of  the  nation,  though  they  were  still  present  as  spectators. 
From  io6<5  until  about  1225,  says  Blackstone,  the  Lords  were 
the  only  legislators.  After  the  Litter  date  the  Commons 
were  occasionally  summoned,  and  in  126$  they  fonned  a 
regular  part  of  the  legislature.  Then  for  the  first  time  did 
the  counties  of  England  return  two  knights,  and  the  boroughs 
and  cities  two  deputies  each,  to  represent  them  in  Parliament. 
Seventy-four  knights  fa^m  all  the  English  counties  except 
Chester,  Durham,  and  Monmouth,^  and  about  two  hundred 
burgesses  and  citizens.  s.\t  in  the  Parliament  of  Edward  I. ; 
but  it  w;is  not  until  the  reign  of  his  successor  that  any 
attempt  w.\s  made  to  fonn  a  constitutional  go\-emment 

The  Three  Estates  in  those  days  sat  in  the  same  Chamber, 
but  did  not  join  in  debate.  The  Lords  nivuic  the  laws,  and 
the  Commons  looked  on  or  perha^vs  assented  respoctiully. 
The  sepviration  of  the  two  Houses  took  place  in  the  reign  of 
Edwarvi  HI.,  when  the  knights  threw  in  their  allegi.ince  with 
the  burgesses,  and  in  13 -'2  the  Lower  House  ^  fir^t  met  ap.ut. 

'  Purh.\in,  both  Covjuty  .\nd  City,  was  not  enfiranchijctl  until  to'ju 
and  Monmouth  was  reji^irvied  as  a  Welsh  C^Hmty. 

'^  "  The  House  of  Commons  is  caII^nI  the  Lo^ve^  House  in  twenty 


40  THE   MOTHER   OF   PARLIAMENTS 

The  power  of  the  Commons  increased  gradually  as  time 
advanced.  By  the  end  of  the  thirteenth  century  they  had 
secured  sufficient  authority  to  ensure  that  no  tax  could  be 
imposed  without  their  consent.  By  the  middle  of  the  four- 
teenth no  law  could  be  passed  unless  they  approved.  But 
many  centuries  were  yet  to  elapse  before  the  chief  govern- 
ment of  the  country  passed  into  their  hands. 

The  expense  of  sending  representatives  to  Parliament 
was  long  considered  a  burden,  many  counties  and  boroughs 
applying  to  be  discharged  from  the  exercise  of  so  costly  a 
privilege.  The  electors  of  those  days  were  apparently  less 
anxious  to  furnish  a  Member  for  the  popular  assembly  than 
to  save  the  payment  of  his  salary.  Indeed,  the  city  of 
Rochester,  in  141 1,  practised  the  frugal  custom  of  compelling 
any  stranger  who  settled  within  its  gates  to  serve  a  term  in 
Parliament  at  his  own  expense.  He  was  thus  permitted  to 
earn  his  freedom,  and  the  parsimonious  citizens  saved  an 
annual  expenditure  of  about  £<^} 

With  the  gradual  growth  of  parliamentary  power  the 
importance  of  electing  members  to  the  House  of  Commons 
began  to  be  recognized,  and,  during  the  Wars  of  the  Roses, 
fewer  and  fewer  applications  were  made  by  boroughs  and 
cities  anxious  to  be  relieved  of  this  duty. 

Until  Henry  VI. 's  time,  when  the  modern  system  of  Bills 
and  Statutes  began  to  come  into  being,  legislation  was  by 
Petition.  The  control  of  Parliament  was  still  very  largely 
in  the  hands  of  the  Crown,  and  successive  sovereigns  took 
care  that  their  influence  over  the  Commons  should  be 
maintained.  With  this  object  in  view  Edward  VI.  enfran- 
chised some  two-and-twenty  rotten  boroughs,  Mary  added 
fourteen  more,  and  in  Elizabeth's  time  sixty-two  further 
members,  all  under  the  royal  control,  were  sent  to  leaven 
the  Commons. 

The  attendance  in  the  Lower  House  was  still  poor,  not 

Acts   of   Parliament,"  says   Selden,    "But   what   are   twenty  Acts    of 
Parliament  amongst  friends  ?  " — "  Table  Talk,"  p.  36. 
^  "  Quarterly  Review,"  vol.  xxxix.  p.  63. 


THE  HOUSE   OF  COMMONS  41 

more  than  two  hundred  members  ever  taking  part  in  the 
largest  divisions,  and  it  was  only  at  the  culmination  of  the 
conflicts  between  Parliament  and  the  Stuart  Kings  that 
the  Commons  began  to  display  a  real  desire  for  independent 
power. 

If  the  Revolution  of  168S  firmly  and  finally  established 
the  supremacy  of  Parliament,  it  was  only  a  supremacy  over 
the  Crown.  The  democratic  element  to  which  we  are 
accustomed  in  a  modern  House  of  Commons  was  still  con- 
spicuously lacking.  Both  Houses  remained  purely  aristo- 
cratic in  character  until  long  after  this,  Whigs  and  Tories 
might  wrangle  over  political  differences  ;  they  were  at  one 
in  their  determination  to  uphold  the  interests  of  a  single 
privileged  class.  "  This  House  is  not  the  representative  of 
the  people  of  Great  Britain,"  said  Pitt  in  the  Commons  in 
1783;  "it  is  the  representative  of  nominal  boroughs,  of 
ruined  and  exterminated  towns,  of  noble  families,  of  wealthy 
individuals,  of  foreign  potentates."  Eight  members  of  Parlia- 
ment were  then  nominated  by  the  Nabob  of  Arcot,  and  in 
1793  the  Duke  of  Norfolk's  nominees  in  the  House  numbered 
eleven.  The  Crown,  the  Church,  and  the  aristocracy  governed 
the  country.  The  Commons  were  an  insignificant  body, 
open  to  bribery,  dependent  upon  rich  patrons  or  upon  electors 
whose  corruption  was  notorious.  Prior  to  1832,  only  170 
out  of  some  658  members  of  Parliament  were  independent  ; 
the  remainder  were  nominated  by  wealthy  individuals.  The 
Reform  Bill  of  1832,  however,  brought  about  a  mighty 
change  for  the  better.  The  electorate  of  the  country  was 
raised  from  300,000  to  1,370,000.  Fifty-six  corrupt  boroughs 
were  disfranchised,  thirty-one  were  deprived  of  one  member 
each,  and  two  others  were  reduced  ;  and  the  hitherto  in- 
adequate representation  of  other  towns  and  boroughs  was 
rectified. 

The  Reformed  Parliament  that  met  in  the  following  year 
differed  in  many  respects  from  its  predecessors.  Sir  Robert 
Peel  was  much  struck  by  the  alteration  in  tone,  character, 
and   appearance  of  the  new  House  of  Commons.     "There 


42  THE   MOTHER   OF  PARLIAMENTS 

was  an  asperity,  a  rudeness,  a  vulgar  assumption  of  in- 
dependence, combined  with  a  fawning  reference  to  the 
people  out  of  doors,  expressed  by  many  of  the  new  members, 
which  "  (as  he  told  his  friend  Raikes)  "  was  highly  disgust- 
ing."^ The  Duke  of  Wellington,  who  had  gone  to  the 
Peers'  Gallery  of  the  House  of  Commons  to  inspect  the  new 
Parliament,  expressed  his  opinion  more  tersely.  "  I  never 
saw  so  many  shocking  bad  hats  in  my  life  !  "  he  said.  The 
spirit  of  democracy  had  crept  in,  but  it  was  still  an  unwelcome 
visitor.  For  many  years  the  aristocracy  maintained  a  great 
preponderance  in  the  House  of  Commons — in  1868  that 
assembly  comprised  45  heirs  of  peerages,  65  younger  sons 
of  peers,  and  57  baronets  ^ — but  its  power  decreased  year  by 
year,  though  even  now  it  cannot  be  said  to  be  wholly 
extinct. 

By  the  Reform  Acts  of  1867  and  1884  the  franchise 
qualifications  were  once  more  extended,  and  three  and  a  half 
million  names  added  to  the  register.  With  the  election,  in 
1874,  of  the  first  Labour  candidates — of  whom  one,  at  least, 
was  a  genuine  working-man — the  Commons  gradually  began 
to  assume  that  representative  appearance  which  it  now 
presents. 

During  the  last  three  centuries  the  Lower  House  has 
increased  very  considerably  in  size  as  well  as  in  importance. 
It  numbered  300  in  the  reign  of  Henry  VI.,  and  506  at  the 
time  of  the  Long  Parliament.  In  1832,  by  which  time  the 
Acts  of  Union  had  added  45  Scottish  and  100  Irish 
members,^  the  numbers  had  risen  to  658,  and  to-day  some 
670  members  sit  in  Parliament. 

The  House  of  Commons  has  long  ago  shaken  off  the 
shackles  of  the  Crown,  and  will  perhaps  some  day  be  almost 
as  wholly  emancipated  from  the  influence  of  the  aristocracy. 
Its  power  is  increasing  yearly,  owing  mainly  to  the  fact  that 

*  Raikes's  "Journal,"  vol.  i.  p.  157. 
2  "  Pall  Mall  Gazette,"  December  28,  i860. 

^  The  Irish  members  were  increased  to  105  in  1832,  but  subsequently 
reduced  to  103,  fifty  years  later. 


THE   HOUSE   OF   COMMONS  43 

it  has  gained  the  confidence  of  the  country,  and  it  is  now 
generally  felt  that  when  any  great  question  arises,  the  House 
will  solve  it,  as  Disraeli  said  some  fifty  years  ago,  "  not 
merely  by  the  present  thought  and  intelligence  of  its  members, 
but  by  the  accumulated  wisdom  of  the  eminent  men  who 
have  preceded  them."  ^ 

To  appreciate  the  exact  nature  of  those  inducements 
which  tempt  a  man  to  enter  Parliament  must  often  prove 
perplexing  to  the  lay  mind.  To  Charles  James  Fox  the 
pleasures  of  patronage  seemed  the  circumstances  which 
chiefly  rendered  desirable  the  possession  of  political  power. 
But  the  patronage  in  the  hands  of  a  private  member  to-day 
is  of  too  insignificant  a  nature  to  prove  an  irresistible  tempta- 
tion, and  political  power  of  an  appreciable  kind  is  reserved 
for  the  very  few. 

The  life  of  the  modern  legislator  is  a  strenuous  and  an 
expensive  one  ;  it  cannot  be  successfully  undertaken  by  a 
poor  or  an  idle  man.  Before  a  candidate  may  stand  for 
Parliament  at  all  he  must  deposit  a  substantial  sum  with 
the  Returning  Officer,  and  the  mere  expenses  of  election 
vary  from  ^350  to  ;^900  in  boroughs,  and  from  £6c^o  to  as 
much  as  ;^i8cxd  in  counties.^  Add  to  this  the  annual  sum 
— variously  computed  at  from  ^200  to  ;^500 — which  a 
member  spends  in  subscriptions  within  his  constituency,  and 
it  can  readily  be  imagined  that  the  parliamentary  life  is  not 
open  to  all.  There  would,  indeed,  seem  to  be  some  justifi- 
cation for  the  criticism  of  that  cynical  member  who  said  that 

1  Hansard,  "  Debates,"  18  April,  1864. 

"^  The  General  Election  of  1880  cost  ^1,700,000.  This  expenditure 
was  reduced  to  about  a  million  pounds  after  the  passing  of  the  Corrupt 
and  Illegal  Practices  Prevention  Act  and  the  Redistribution  Bill  of 
1883  and  1885.  By  the  former  the  expenses  in  boroughs  are  limited 
to  ^350,  if  the  number  of  electors  does  not  exceed  2000  ;  and  to  ^380 
if  it  does  exceed  2000,  with  an  extra  ^30  for  every  further  1000  electors. 
In  counties,  where  the  electors  do  not  exceed  2000,  the  expenses  are 
limited  to  ^650,  and  to  ^710  if  they  exceed  2000,  with  an  extra  £60  for 
every  further  1000  electors.  These  sums  do  not  include  personal 
expenses  up  to  ^100  and  the  charges  of  the  returning  officer. 


44  THE   MOTHER   OF   PARLIAMENTS 

he  had  often  heard  the  House  of  Commons  called  "the  best 
club  in  London,"  and  supposed  that  it  was  so  termed  because 
it  demanded  the  largest  entrance  fee.^  A  few  fortunate 
candidates  have  their  election  expenses  paid  by  a  party  or 
by  Trades  Unions,  but  these  are  in  the  minority,  and  the 
comparatively  large  cost  of  entering  Parliament  is  the  chief 
reason  why,  in  spite  of  the  democratic  tendency  of  modern 
political  thought,  the  House  of  Commons  still  remains  in 
large  measure  a  delegation  of  the  richest  if  not  perhaps  of 
the  most  aristocratic  class  in  England.  This  state  of  things 
is  likely  to  continue  unless  some  system  is  adopted  of 
remunerating  the  services  of  legislators  in  the  fashion  which 
long  prevailed  in  England  and  is  still  in  vogue  upon  the 
Continent.  But  it  is  certainly  open  to  argument  whether 
its  adoption  would  improve  the  quality  of  the  House  or 
the  respect  entertained  for  it  in  the  country. 

In  the  Parliaments  of  Edward  HI.  members  received 
regular  payment,  the  wages  varying  from  year  to  year.  At 
the  beginning  of  the  fourteenth  century,  for  example,  the 
knights  of  Dorsetshire  were  paid  5j".  a  day  ;  later  on  this  was 
reduced  to  i^-.  6d.  In  13 14  the  daily  wage  of  county 
members  was  4y.,  and  they  were  also  allowed  a  small  sum  to 
cover  travelling  expenses.  In  Henry  VII I. 's  reign  boroughs 
were  expected  to  pay  their  own  members'  expenses.  Frugal 
constituencies  occasionally  bargained  with  their  would-be 
representatives,  and  candidates,  stimulated  to  generous  im- 
pulses by  the  idea  of  imminent  election,  would  agree  to 
defray  their  own  expenses  or  even  to  go  without  wages 
altogether.  Sometimes,  too,  members  appear  to  have  been 
willing  to  pay  for  the  privilege  of  election.  In  1571  a  certain 
Thomas  Long  was  returned  for  the  Wiltshire  borough  of 
Westbury  by  the  simple  process  of  paying  the  mayor  a  sum 
of  £/^.     Long's  unfitness  for  a  seat  in  Parliament — he  was 

1  Hansard,  "Debates,^'  vol.  288,  p.  1563.  (5  June,  1884.)  (The 
phrase  was  first  used  in  a  novel  entitled,  "  Friends  of  Bohemia,  or 
Phases  of  London  Life,"  published  in  1857,  by  a  Parliamentary  writer 
named  E.  M.  Whitty.) 


THE   HOUSE  OF   COMMONS  45 

a  simple  yeoman — became  apparent  as  soon  as  he  entered 
the  House.  On  being  questioned,  he  admitted  having  bribed 
the  constituency  to  elect  him,  and  was  at  once  informed  that 
the  House  had  no  further  need  of  his  services.  The  inhabi- 
tants of  Westbury  were  fined  ;^20,  and  the  Mayor  was 
compelled  to  refund  his  money.^ 

The  practice  of  paying  members  long  continued.  In  the 
year  1586  we  find  the  member  for  Grantham  suing  the 
borough  for  his  salary.  The  House  of  Commons  does 
not,  however,  appear  to  have  been  anxious  to  uphold  this 
claim,  and  requested  that  it  should  be  withdrawn.  By  this 
time,  indeed,  it  had  become  usual  for  members  to  forego  the 
financial  advantages  of  election — though  there  still  remained 
some  notable  exceptions  who  were  not  satisfied  with  the 
honorary  rewards  attaching  to  the  possession  of  a  seat  in 
Parliament — and  in  1677  the  Commons  repealed  the  Statute 
by  which  wages  were  paid  to  members.'^ 

Samuel  Pepys  deplored  the  gradual  neglect  of  the  old 
practice  requiring  constituencies  to  allow  wages  to  their 
representatives,  whereby,  he  said,  "  they  chose  men  that 
understood  their  business  and  would  attend  it,  and  they 
could  expect  an  account  from,  which  now  they  cannot."  ^ 
But  this  view  was  not  the  popular  one,  and  electors  gladly 
availed  themselves  of  the  change  in  public  opinion  to  dis- 
continue the  earlier  system.  Motions  have  been  brought 
forward  on  more  than  one  occasion,  "  to  restore  the  ancient 
constitutional  custom  of  payment  of  members," — notably  in 
1870  and  1 888 — but  have  always  been  rejected  by  a  large 
majority.*  Nowadays,  however,  there  seems  some  inclina- 
tion to  revert  to  the  old-fashioned  and  more  expensive 
method,  and  within  recent  years  a  Liberal   Prime   Minister 

'  "  Parliamentary  History,"  vol.  i.  p.  766. 

"  Andrew  Marvell  continued  to  receive  a  salary  from  Hull  until  his 
death  in  1678  (see  his  "  Works,"  vol.  ii.,  xxxv.),  and  the  member  for 
Harwich  obtained  a  writ  against  that  borough  for  his  salary  in  168 1. 

^  "Diary,"  30  March,  1668. 

*  Irving's  "Annals  of  Our  Time,"  p.  912.  (The  majority  in  1870 
was  187.) 


46  THE  MOTHER   OF   PARLIAMENTS 

has  promised  to  provide  payment  for  members  whenever 
funds  for  the  purpose  are  available.  In  other  respects  the 
desire  of  the  member  of  Parliament  to-day  would  appear 
to  be  rather  in  the  direction  of  relinquishing  than  of  adding 
to  his  personal  privileges.  In  the  eighteenth  century,  for 
example,  he  would  never  have  dreamt  of  paying  postal  fees. 
Members  transmitted  their  correspondence  without  charge 
by  the  simple  process  of  inscribing  their  names  in  one  corner 
of  the  envelope.  The  privilege  of  "  franking,"  as  this  was 
called,  was  afterwards  limited  by  its  being  required  that  the 
date  and  place  of  posting  should  be  added  in  the  member's 
handwriting,  and  the  daily  number  of  free  letters  was  re- 
stricted to  ten  sent  and  fifteen  received.  In  those  free  and 
easy  days  kind-hearted  members  would  provide  their  friends 
with  large  bundles  of  franked  half-sheets  of  paper,  and  the 
number  of  persons  who  paid  any  postage  on  their  correspon- 
dence two  hundred  years  ago  must  have  been  very  small 
indeed.  In  a  letter  written  by  Mrs.  Delany  to  a  friend  in 
1749  we  find  the  subject  mentioned  in  a  way  that  shows  how 
universally  available  had  become  such  opportunities  for 
defrauding  the  revenue.  "  I  have  been  so  silly  as  to  forget 
franks,"  she  writes.  "  I  must  beg  the  favour  of  you  to  get 
a  dozen  or  two  for  me  from  Sir  Charles  Mordaunt.  ...  I 
don't  know,"  she  adds,  "  but  you  will  find  a  few  of  the  Duke 
of  Portland's  in  the  drawer  with  the  paper."  ^ 

By  the  end  of  the  eighteenth  century  the  improper  frank- 
ing of  letters  threatened  to  become  a  public  scandal.  Covers 
were  transmitted  by  the  hundred,  packed  in  boxes,  the  only 
limit  to  their  distribution  being  the  good  nature  of  members. 
A  London  banker  once  received  thirty-three  covers  containing 
garden  seeds  from  a  Scottish  member,  and  it  became  apparent 
to  the  postal  authorities  that  some  effort  must  be  made  to 
put  a  stop  to  the  practice.^  This  was  eventually  done  in 
1840,  not  without  a  struggle,  and  the  modern  member  of 
Parliament   who   writes   letters   to   his   friends   must  do   so 

^  "Autobiography  of  Mrs.  Delany,"  vol.  ii.'p.  511. 
■^  Wraxall's  "  Posthumous  Memoirs." 


IHK    lldLSK   OK   C"(^.M.MOXS     IN    174J 

FROM    AN    EN(;HAVI\G    I'.V   JOHN    l-INE 


THE   HOUSE   OF   COMMONS  47 

at  his  own  expense.  He  is  still,  however,  allowed  to  send 
a  certain  number  of  printed  copies  of  bills  to  his  constituents, 
free  of  charge,  by  writing  his  name  in  a  corner  of  the  packet. 

To-day  the  privileges  of  membership  are  certainly  not  of 
a  material  kind.  A  few  men  enter  the  House  of  Commons 
for  social  purposes,  and  must  be  sadly  disappointed  in  the 
result.  The  simple  letters,  "  M.P."  on  a  card  are  indeed  no 
longer,  as  the  author  of  that  entertaining  work,  "  Men  and 
Manners  in  Parliament,"  declared  them  to  be  thirty  years 
ago,  "  the  surest  passport  to  distinction  for  mediocrity  travel- 
ling on  the  continent."  ^  Bitter  experience  has  shattered  the 
simple  faith  in  human  nature  which  was  once  the  chief  charm 
of  the  Swiss  innkeeper.  The  sight  of  a  British  member  of 
Parliament  signing  a  cheque  no  longer  inspires  him  with 
confidence.     He  is  only  too  well  aware  that  among  those — 

"Types  of  the  elements  whose  glorious  strife' 
Form'd  this  free  England,  and  still  guard  her  life," 

there  exist  a  few  who  are  not  above  leaving  their  hotel  bills 
permanently  unpaid  ;  and  this  knowledge  has  endowed  him 
with  a  caution  which  is  both  galling  to  the  sensitive  soul  of 
the  average  M.P.  and  extremely  inconvenient  to  the  tourist 
who  has  momentarily  mislaid  his  letter  of  credit. 

If  the  member  cannot  now  enjoy  the  unmixed  respect  of 
the  foreigner,  it  is  equally  certain  that  at  home  he  is  no 
longer  looked  upon  with  the  veneration  with  which  his  pre- 
decessors were  commonly  regarded.  His  constituents  treat 
him  as  their  servant  no  less  than  as  their  representative. 
And  though  he  may  find  some  comfort  in  that  definition  of 
a  member's  duties  for  which  Edmund  Burke  is  responsible — 
which  perhaps  cost  that  statesman  his  seat  at  the  General 
Election  of  1780 — this  will  prove  but  a  slight  consolation 
when  he  is  suddenly  called  upon  by  his  local  committee  to 
explain  some  change  of  views  or  to  account  for  constant 
neglect  of  his  parliamentary  duties. 

Parliament  is  not,  indeed,  as  Burke  told  the  electors  of 

»  p.  270. 


48  THE   MOTHER   OF   PARLIAMENTS 

Bristol,  a  congress  of  ambassadors  from  different  and  hostile 
interests,  which  interests  each  must  maintain,  as  an  agent 
and  advocate,  against  other  agents  and  advocates.  It  is  a 
deliberate  assembly  of  one  nation,  with  one  interest,  that  of 
the  whole ;  where  not  local  purposes,  not  local  prejudices, 
ought  to  guide,  but  the  general  good,  resulting  from  the 
general  reason  of  the  whole.  "  You  choose  a  member 
indeed,"  he  said  ;  "but  when  you  have  chosen  him,  he  is  not 
a  member  of  Bristol,  but  he  is  a  member  of  Parliament."  ^ 
At  the  same  time  a  member  cannot  afford  to  forget  that  he 
owes  much  to  his  constituents  ;  his  existence  in  Parliament 
depends  very  greatly  upon  their  good  pleasure.  He  must  be 
to  a  certain  extent  at  their  beck  and  call,  willing  to  subscribe 
to  their  local  charities,  to  open  their  bazaars,  visit  their 
hospitals,  kick  off  at  their  football  matches,  take  the  chair  at 
their  farmers'  dinners  or  smoking-concerts.  He  must  have 
a  welcome  hand  ever  extended  in  the  direction  of  the  squire, 
a  smile  for  the  licensed  victualler,  a  kindly  nod  of  the  head 
for  the  meanest  elector,  and  (at  election  times)  a  kiss  for  the 
humblest  voter's  stickiest  child.  When  constituents  call  upon 
him  at  the  House  he  must  greet  them  with  a  display  of 
effusiveness  which  gives  no  hint  of  his  annoyance  at  being 
interrupted  in  the  middle  of  important  business.  They  may 
want  to  be  shown  round  the  House,  and  such  a  natural  desire 
on  their  part  must  be  acquiesced  in,  though  it  is  not  every 
one  who  has  the  courage  to  escort  a  band  of  six  hundred 
constituents  round  the  Chamber,  as  did  a  member  in  1883. 
Every  morning  the  postman  will  bring  him — besides  that 
voluminous  bundle  of  parliamentary  papers  and  bluebooks, 
with  the  contents  of  which  he  is  mythically  supposed  to 
make  himself  acquainted — a  score  of  applications  of  various 
kinds  from  his  constituents,  all  of  which  must  be  attended  to. 

*  Speech  at  Bristol  in  1774.  ("Works  and  Correspondence  of  E, 
Burke,"  vol.  iii.  p.  236).  Algernon  Sidney  anticipated  this  remark.  "  It 
is  not  therefore  for  Kent  or  Sussex,  Lewes  or  Maidstone,  but  for  the 
whole  nation,  that  the  members  chosen  in  those  places  are  sent  to  serve 
in  Parliament." — "  Discourse  Concerning  Government,"  vol.  ii.  p.  370. 


THE   HOUSE   OF   COMMONS  49 

The  day  is  long  past  when  he  can  emulate  the  cavalier 
methods  of  Fox  who,  as  Secretary  of  State  for  Foreign 
Affairs,  affixed  a  notice  to  the  door  of  his  office  :  "  No  letters 
received  here  on  Mondays,  Tuesdays,  Wednesdays,  Thursdays, 
Fridays  or  Saturdays  !  and  none  answered  on  any  day  ! "  ^ 

The  modern  member's  duties  are  by  no  means  confined 
to  the  House  of  Commons,  nor  are  they  limited  to  the 
duration  of  the  session.  Formerly  it  would  never  have 
occurred  to  a  member  to  make  a  speech  in  his  constituency, 
once  he  was  elected  ;  though  as  a  candidate  he  would  of 
course  address  the  voters,  and  might  even  be  compelled  to 
attend  a  banquet  or  a  provincial  dance.^  The  idea  of  paying 
a  visit  to  the  electors  of  any  constituency  other  than  his  own 
would,  a  century  ago,  have  been  considered  in  the  worst 
possible  taste.  Nowadays,  however,  the  point  of  view  is 
changed.  No  sooner  has  he  completed  his  share  in  the 
arduous  work  of  the  session — the  long  tedious  hours  of  debate, 
the  wearisome  attendance  on  committees,  the  continual 
tramping  through  the  division  lobbies — and  shaken  the  dust 
of  Westminster  from  his  feet,  than  he  must  hasten  to  the 
country  to  give  some  account  of  his  stewardship,  to  dazzle 
his  constituents  with  the  oratorical  platitudes  which  have 
failed  to  move  the  more  fastidious  audience  of  the  House  of 
Commons,  He  must  even  be  ready  to  rush  off  to  the 
assistance  of  a  fellow-member  in  some  distant  shire,  and 
purge  his  bosom  of  the  same  perilous  stuff  upon  various 
platforms  all  over  the  country. 

Sir  Edward  Coke  declared  three  hundred  years  ago  that 
every  member  of  Parliament  should  in  three  respects  at  least 
resemble  the  elephant ;  "  first,  that  he  hath  no  gall ;  secondly, 
that  he  is  inflexible,  and  cannot  bow  ;  thirdly,  that  he  is 
of  a  most  ripe  and  perfect  memory."  ^      He  might  well  have 

'  Bell's  "  Biographical  Sketches,"  p.  82. 

-  Croker,  in  1820,  complains  of  having  to  attend  a  three  o'clock  dinner 
and  dance  at  Bodmin,  when  he  stood  as  candidate  ;  the  whole  affair 
being,  he  says,  "  at  once  tiresome  and  foolish."  "  Croker  Papers," 
vol.  i.  p.  166. 

3  "  Institute  of  the  Laws  of  England,"  4th  part,  p.  3. 
£ 


50  THE   MOTHER  OF   PARLIAMENTS 

added  some  of  the  other  qualities  of  that  admirable  beast — 
patience,  docility,  the  capacity  for  hard  work,  and,  above  all, 
a  thick  skin.  Though  outwardly  inflexible,  a  modern 
member  must  be  prepared  to  bow  to  the  wishes  of  his  party  ; 
and  in  his  ripe  and  perfect  memory  there  should  be  room  for 
the  names  and  faces  of  his  constituents  and  their  wives.  He 
must  be  patient  when  he  has  failed  for  the  hundredth  time  to 
"  catch  the  Speaker's  eye " ;  he  must  be  docile  when  the 
Whip  urges  him  to  vote  in  favour  of  a  motion  with  which  he 
disagrees  fundamentally  ;  and  if  he  be  of  a  thin-skinned 
disposition  or  of  a  delicate  constitution,  the  labours  of  the 
House  of  Commons  may  soon  prove  too  much  for  him.  If 
he  is  unambitious  and  anxious  to  lead  a  peaceful  life,  he  will  do 
well  to  remember  the  advice  given  by  Ferguson  of  Pitfour, 
who  summed  up  his  parliamentary  experiences,  in  1826,  as 
follows :  "  I  was  never  present  at  any  debate  I  could  avoid, 
or  absent  from  any  division  I  could  get  at.  I  have  heard 
many  arguments  which  convinced  my  judgment,  but  never 
one  that  influenced  my  vote.  I  never  voted  but  once 
according  to  my  own  opinion,  and  that  was  the  worst  vote  I 
ever  gave.  I  found  that  the  only  way  to  be  quiet  in  Parliament 
was  always  to  vote  with  the  Ministry,  and  never  to  take 
a  place."  ^ 

No  doubt  the  member  of  Parliament  enjoys  many 
privileges  which  are  denied  to  the  mere  layman.  He  is 
stimulated  by  the  excitement  of  participating  in  a'  perpetual 
political  conflict ;  he  delights  in  the  intellectual  pleasure  of 
hearing  the  most  interesting  questions  of  the  day  debated  by 
the  shrewdest  men  of  the  age ;  he  is  conscious  of  being  in  a 
sense  a  public  benefactor,  with  a  direct  (if  somewhat  slight) 
influence  upon  the  policy  of  his  country.  He  is  given  a 
front  seat  in  what  Mr.  Biggar  once  called  the  "  best  theatre 
in  London,"  and  there  is  always  the  chance  that  some  day  he 
may  himself  be  cast  for  a  leading  part  in  that  great  political 
drama  which  is  performed  night  after  night  on  the  boards  of 
the  Theatre  Royal,  Westminster.  Politics — "  I'art  de  mentir  a 
'  Sir  H.  C.  Robinson's  "  Diary  and  Reminiscences,"  vol.  ii.  pp.  315-6. 


THE   HOUSE   OF   COMMONS  51 

propos,"  as  Voltaire  defined  them — may  have  their  origin 
in  the  perversity  rather  than  in  the  grandeur  of  the  human 
soul,  but  the  attraction  they  exercise  over  the  average  English- 
man is  very  great.^  But  for  the  privileges  of  a  parliamentary 
career — one  of  the  worthiest  to  which  a  patriot  can  devote 
himself,  in  Mr.  Balfour's  opinion — a  heavy  price  has  to  be 
paid,  and  to  the  toll  of  toil  and  treasure  levied  by  Parliament 
must  be  added  the  sacrifice  of  independence  as  well  as 
of  time. 

In  this  twentieth  century  the  initiative  of  the  private 
member  has  almost  disappeared.  The  Government  is  alone 
responsible  for  legislation  ;  all  the  most  important  measures 
brought  in  are  Government  measures.  The  time  of  the 
House  is  placed,  very  early  in  each  session,  at  the  disposal 
of  the  Government,  its  business  is  arranged  to  suit  their 
convenience,  and  the  private  member  must  be  content  to 
make  the  most  of  such  fragmentary  opportunities  as  are 
flung  to  him.  He  is  controlled  by  his  party  and  by  his 
Whip ;  he  may  not  leave  the  House  without  permission  ;  he 
must  vote  at  the  word  of  command.  At  one  moment  he  may 
be  called  upon  to  speak  at  length  upon  a  subject  of  which  he 
is  sublimely  ignorant,  in  order  to  allow  his  party  a  chance 
of  gathering  their  forces  to  meet  an  unexpected  division  ; 
at  another  he  is  compelled  to  refrain  from  good  words, 
though  it  may  be  pain  and  grief  to  him,  in  order  to  save  the 
precious  time  of  the  Government.  And  perhaps  he  will 
occasionally  be  inclined  to  agree  once  more  with  Burke  that 
the  same  qualifications,  nowadays,  make  a  good  member  of 
Parliament  that  formerly  made  a  good  monk :  "  Bene  loqui 
de  superiore,  legere  breviarum  taliter  qualiter,  et  sinere  res 
vadere  ut  vadunt " — to  speak  well  of  the  minister,  read  the 
lesson  he  sets  you,  and  let  the  State  take  care  of  itself!  ^ 

*  Moore  wrote  to  Lady  Donegal  in  1807  :  "  I  begin  at  last  to  find 
out  that  politics  is  the  only  thing  minded  in  this  country,  and  that  it  is 
better  even  to  rebel  against  government  than  have  nothing  to  do  with  it.' 
"  Memoirs,"  vol.  i.  p.  225. 

^  Prior's  "  Life  of  Burke,"  vol.  ii.  p.  454. 


52  THE  MOTHER   OF   PARLIAMENTS 

Even  so,  the  advantages  of  membership  arc  not  to  be 
despised  ;  and  once  a  man  has  tasted  the  sweets  of  political 
life,  all  other  professions  fade  into  insignificance.  He 
may  have  been  moved  to  enter  Parliament  by  some  ambi- 
tious yearning  after  fame  ;  he  may  have  been  prompted  by 
patriotic  motives,  or  merely  the  desire  to  prove  himself  a 
useful  member  of  society,  his  serious  opinion  being  (like  that 
of  Buxton,  the  great  opponent  of  Slavery)  that  "  good 
woodcock-shooting  is  a  preferable  thing  to  glory."  ^  His 
contributions  to  debate  may  be  of  poor  quality,  but  they  will 
not  be  altogether  valueless,  and,  after  an  arduous  day  in  the 
House,  he  will  listen  with  a  glow  of  conscious  rectitude  to  the 
ancient  and  welcome  cry  of  "Who  goes  Home?  "  which  rings 
through  the  lobbies  and  announces  the  close  of  the  sitting.' 
Though  he  may  never,  perhaps,  wake  to  find  himself  famous, 
he  will  often  sink  comfortably  to  sleep  on  his  return  home 
from  tile  House  in  the  early  hours  of  the  morning,  soothed 
by  the  consciousness  of  duty  done.  That  in  itself  is  a  thing 
not  to  be  despised,  and  there  may  possibly  be  other  benefits 
in  store  for  him.  If  he  is  sufficiently  painstaking  and 
intelligent  he  may  perchance  have  greatness  thrust  upon  him 
in  the  form  of  an  under-secrctaryship,  and,  when  he  has 
scaled  the  outer  breastworks  of  that  Cabinet  zareba  to  which 
access  is  so  difficult,  the  suspicion  that  he  has  long  cherished 
of  being  a  heaven-born  politician  is  at  length  confirmed. 

Socrates  was  right  when  he  said  that  whereas  no  man 
undertook  a  trade  that  he  had  not  thoroughly  learnt,  every- 
body considered  himself  sufficiently  qualified  by  nature  to 
undertake  the  trade  of  government,  probably  the  most 
difficult  in  the  world.  There  are,  however,  certain  disquali- 
fications which  prevent  the  most  ambitious  man  from  serving 
in  Parliament.^ 


'  Buxton's  "  Memoirs,"  p.  154. 

^  In  olden  days  members  used  to  return  from  Westminster  to 
London  through  lanes  infested  with  robbers.  This  cry  enabled  them 
to  assemble  and  leave  the  House  in  one  another's  company. 

3  It  is  curious  to  reflect  that  a  man  may  be  a  member  of  rarliamenl 


THE   HOUSE   OF   COMMONS  53 

Infants  and  minors  may  not  be  elected  to  the  House  of 
Commons.  But  though  they  have  always  been  excluded  by 
custom  or  statute,  their  presence  was  winked  at  until  the  end 
of  the  eighteenth  century.  The  members  of  those  bygone 
times  seem  generally  to  have  been  more  youthful  than  the 
members  of  to-day.  Even  the  Chair  was  occupied  by  men 
comparatively  young,  Seymour,  Harley,  and  Sir  Thomas 
More  each  being  elected  Speaker  before  he  had  reached  the 
age  of  forty.  The  last-named  speaks  of  himself  as  a  "  beard- 
less boy  resisting  greybeards  and  Kings  themselves,"  referring 
no  doubt  to  the  time  when  Cardinal  Wolsey  came  to  the 
House  of  Commons  in  1523,  to  ask  for  money  for  his  royal 
master,  and  he  actively  opposed  the  grant. 

In  Queen  Elizabeth's  time  the  Lower  Chamber  was  not 
weakened  by  the  admission  of  too  many  infants  ;  but  during 
the  reign  of  James  I.  the  ancient  custom  for  old  men  to 
make  laws  for  young  ones  seems  to  have  been  inverted,  there 
being  as  many  as  forty  members  of  Parliament  who  were 
minors,  and  several  who  were  not  more  than  sixteen  years 
old.^  The  poet  Waller  sat  in  the  Commons  before  he  was 
seventeen,  while  Lord  Torrington  (afterwards  Duke  of 
Albemarle)  took  part  in  debate  when  he  was  only  fourteen, 
and  at  that  age  addressed  the  House  in  1667,  on  the  subject 
of  Clarendon's  impeachment-  The  infant  members  of  that 
day  were  singularly  precocious  and  well  able  to  look  after 
themselves.  When,  for  instance,  some  one  urged  that  Lord 
Falkland  was  too  young  to  sit  in  Parliament,  as  he  had  not 
yet  sown  his  wild  oats,  that  young  nobleman  rudely  replied 
that  he  could  imagine  no  more  suitable  place  for  sowing 
them  than  the  House  of  Commons,  where  there  were  so 
many  geese  to  pick  them  up.^ 

The    Crown  saw   no    disadvantage    in   having   youthful 

even  though  he  is  not  entitled  to  a  vote  as  an  elector.  The  Rt.  Hon. 
Austen  Chamberlain  was  not  only  a  member,  but  even  a  Cabinet 
Minister,  at  a  time  when  he  had  no  vote. 

^  Naunton's  "  Fragmenta  Regalia,"  p.  21. 

^  Shaftesbury's  "  Life,''  vol.  i.  p.  30  n. 

^  Townsend's  "  History,"  vol.  ii.  p.  400. 


54  THE   MOTHER  OF   PARLIAMENTS 

legislators,  who  could  all  the  more  easily  be  influenced. 
When  Parliament  assembled  in  1661  and  the  tender  age  of 
many  of  the  members  was  pointed  out  to  King  Charles,  he 
answered  that  he  found  no  great  fault  in  that,  "  for  he  could 
keep  them  till  they  got  beards."^  By  the  Act  of  1695, 
however,  infants  were  formally  excluded  from  Parliament,  but 
for  a  long  time  they  continued  to  sit  in  the  House,  though 
they  most  probably  abstained  from  voting. 

Extreme  youth  was  not  considered  a  bar  to  parliamentary 
success  in  days  when  it  was  possible  for  a  politician  to 
become  Prime  Minister,  as  Pitt  did,  at  the  age  of  twenty- 
five,  though  that  statesman's  father  found  it  necessary  on  one 
occasion  to  defend  himself  against  the  charge  of  immaturity.^ 
Both  Fox  and  Philip  Stanhope  (afterwards  Lord  Chester- 
field) delivered  their  maiden  speeches  a  month  or  so  before 
they  came  of  age,^  and  Lord  John  Russell  was  returned  to 
Parliament  when  he  was  still  a  minor. 

As  the  years  advanced  the  House  of  Commons  became 
more  and  more  particular  in  this  respect,  and  at  the  beginning 
of  the  nineteenth  century  an  eye-witness  was  struck  by  the 
large  proportion  of  bald-headed  men — nearly  a  third  of  the 
whole  number — in  the  Lower  Chamber.*  To-day  no  one  who 
has  not  reached  the  mature  age  of  twenty-one  can  stand  for 
Parliament,  much  less  sit  upon  the  sacred  green  benches. 

Lunatics  and  idiots  are  also  disentitled  to  parliamentary 
election.  A  member  who  goes  mad  after  having  taken  his 
seat  can  only  be  removed,  however,  if  his  case  is  proved  to 
be  a  hopeless  one,  the  House  being  then  petitioned  to  declare 

1  Reresby's  "  Memoirs,"  p.  51. 

2  "Sir,"  he  said  in  debate,  "the  atrocious  crime  of  being  a  young 
man,  which  the  hon.  gentleman  (Horace  Walpole)  has  with  such  decency 
and  spirit  charged  against  me,  I  shall  neither  attempt  to  palliate  or 
deny  ;  but  content  myself  with  wishing  that  I  may  be  one  of  those  whose 
follies  may  cease  with  their  youth,  and  not  of  that  number  who  are 
ignorant  in  spite  of  experience." 

3  Chesterfield's  "  Letters,"  vol.  ii.  p.  339.  In  order  to  escape  the  fine 
of  ^500  Chesterfield  retired  from  political  life  for  a  short  time. 

*  Grant's  "  Recollections,"  p.  62. 


THE   HOUSE   OF   COMMONS  55 

the  seat  vacant,  and  the  Speaker  issuing  a  new  writ.  In  one 
well-known  instance  a  committee  of  the  House  found  that  a 
member's  lunacy  was  not  so  incurable  as  to  justify  his 
removal,  and  he  retained  his  seat.  In  1881  the  case  of  a 
lunatic  recording  his  vote  in  a  division  was  the  occasion  of 
a  painful  and  futile  debate.  The  member  in  question  suffered 
from  periodical  bouts  of  insanity,  and  had  recently  been 
certified  "  dangerous  "  at  his  own  request,  in  order  that  he 
might  retire  temporarily  to  an  asylum.  It  was  therefore 
obviously  improper  for  him  to  vote.  The  House,  however, 
declined  to  take  any  serious  notice  of  the  incident,  the  motion 
for  an  inquiry  by  a  Select  Committee  into  the  circumstances 
of  the  case  being  negatived,  and  the  matter  tactfully  allowed 
to  drop.^ 

Aliens  cannot  sit  in  Parliament  until  they  have  taken  the 
precaution  of  becoming  naturalised  British  subjects.  In 
William  III.'s  time  all  persons  born  outside  the  dominions 
were  disqualified,  and  when  the  Test  and  Corporation  Acts 
were  repealed  in  George  IV.'s  reign,  an  amendment  was 
inserted  by  the  Bishop  of  Llandaff  in  the  House  of  Lords  by 
which  Jews  were  excluded  from  Parliament.  They  were 
finally  admitted  to  the  House  of  Commons  in  1858,  and 
during  the  reign  of  Queen  Victoria  naturalisation  was  held  to 
carry  with  it  full  political  rights. 

English  and  Scottish  peers  are  incapacitated  from  serving 
in  the  Commons.  Irish  peers,  however,  may  do  so,  provided 
that  they  are  not  already  sitting  as  representative  peers  in 
the  House  of  Lords.^  The  eldest  sons  of  peers  were  excluded 
from  the  Lower  House  down  to  the  middle  of  the  sixteenth 
century,  when  they  were  gratefully  admitted  and  given  scats 
of  honour  on  the  front  bench  with  the  Privy  Councillors. 

Irishmen  enjoy  parliamentary  privileges  not  only  as  peers 

*  See  Hansard,  vol.  clxii.  p.  1941. 

^  When  the  Lords  were  temporarily  abolished  in  1648,  peers  were 
elected  to  the  Commons,  but  only  a  few  seem  to  have  availed  themselves 
of  this  privilege.  Porritt's  "  Unreformed  House  of  Commons,"  vol.  i. 
p.  123. 


56  THE   MOTHER   OF   PARLIAMENTS 

but  also  as  bankrupts.  The  occasional  combination  of  the 
two  therefore  carries  with  it  some  slight  compensation.  A 
bankrupt  Englishman  or  Scotsman  is  disabled  from  even 
standing  as  a  candidate  for  Parliament,  whereas  his  more 
fortunate  Irish  brother  may  be  elected.  Members  of  Parlia- 
ment who  become  bankrupt  after  election  may  continue  to 
sit  and  vote  in  the  Commons  until  the  Speaker  has  received 
official  notification  of  their  bankruptcy,  or  the  House  has 
ordered  their  withdrawal. 

The  election  of  clergymen  and  other  ministers  was 
prohibited  by  an  Act  of  1801,  passed  in  order  to  deal  with 
the  case  of  the  Rev.  J.  Home  Tooke,  the  "Father  of 
Radicalism,"  who  had  been  elected  for  Old  Sarum.  It  did 
not  succeed  in  its  object,  however,  for  he  continued  to  sit  for 
the  remainder  of  the  Parliament.^  And  by  another  Act, 
passed  about  1870,  any  one  who  has  relinquished  the  office 
of  priest  or  deacon  is  eligible  for  election.  Otherwise  no 
minister  of  the  Established  Church  may  sit  in  Parliament. 

Many  other  persons  arc  similarly  debarred,  among  whom 
may  be  mentioned  the  holders  of  offices  under  the  Crown 
created  since  1705,  Crown  pensioners  (exclusive  of  civil 
servants  and  diplomats),  and  Government  contractors.  Persons 
guilty  of  treason  or  felony  (who  have  neither  served  their 
sentence  nor  been  pardoned),  or  of  corrupt  practices  at 
elections  are  likewise  disqualified,'^  as  are  also  those  who  are 
unable  to  take  the  Oath  of  Allegiance  or  to  affirm.  There  are, 
besides,  a  number  of  officials  connected  with  the  administra- 
tion  of   justice,   or   concerned   with    the    collection    of    the 

'  Home  Tooke  was  a  man  of  strength  and  determination.  Upon  all 
great  public  questions,  as  he  once  declared,  "  neither  friends  nor  foes,  nor 
life  nor  death,  nor  thunder  nor  lightning,  would  ever  make  him  give  way 
the  breadth  of  one  hair."  When  Lord  Temple  claimed  a  superior  right  to 
sit  in  Parliament  because  he  had  "a  stake  in  the  country,"  "So  have  I," 
said  Tooke,  "  but  it  was  not  stolen  from  a  public  hedge  ! " 

-  In  1558  it  was  voted  by  a  small  majority  that  one  outlawed  or  guilty 
of  various  frauds  might  sit  in  the  House  if  duly  elected,  his  crimes  being 
apparently  purged  by  virtue  of  his  election.  See  Raikes's  "  English 
Constitution,"  vol.  i.  p.  323. 


THE    HOUSE   OF   COMMONS  57 

Revenue,  or  representatives  of  the  Crown — judges,  colonial 
governors,  etc. — who  are  incapacitated  by  their  positions  from 
sitting  in  the  House  of  Commons. 

At  one  period  of  parliamentary  history  lawyers  were 
excluded  from  the  House  of  Commons,  enactments  in  favour 
of  keeping  out  '*  gentlemen  of  the  long  robe  "  being  passed 
in  Edward  HI.'s  time.  They  were  always  unpopular 
members,  it  being  supposed  that  they  only  entered  Parlia- 
ment as  a  stepping-stone  to  wider  practice  at  the  Bar  or  to 
some  sort  of  Government  employment.  The  legal  profession 
was  looked  upon  as  one  into  which  no  one  entered  without 
views  of  self-aggrandisement,  and  the  use  of  a  seat  in 
Parliament  as  a  means  of  advertising  oneself  did  not  appeal 
to  the  country  at  large.^  Lawyers  are  allowed  to  sit  in  the 
House  to-day,  but  they  may  not  practise  as  counsel  before 
Parliamentary  Committees,  nor  even  advise  professionally 
upon  any  private  Bill. 

Having  successfully  eluded  all  these  disqualifications, 
paid  a  large  sum  for  the  privilege  of  serving  his  country, 
talked  himself  hoarse  on  the  platforms  of  his  constituency, 
and  finally  been  returned  in  triumph  to  the  House  of 
Commons,  the  private  member  may  consider  himself  safely 
launched  upon  the  parliamentary  sea.  It  now  remains  to 
be  seen  whether  or  not  political  life  comes  up  to  his  ex- 
pectations. If  he  is  energetic,  ambitious,  and  eloquent  he 
will  find  free  scope  for  his  talents  on  the  green  benches  at 
Westminster.  He  will  be  given  a  chance  of  proving  his 
worth  upon  Select  Committees.  Here  he  can  serve  his 
apprenticeship  in  preparation  for  that  glorious  day  when  he 
may  be  inspired  to  thrill  and  enrapture  a  delighted  assembly 
with  such  an  outburst  of  oratory  as  shall  at  once  establish  his 
claim  to  the  consideration  of  his  party.  Then  indeed  does 
Fortune  seem  ready  to  smile  upon  the  embryo  statesman. 
In  imagination  he  sees  himself  lounging  upon  the  Treasury 
bench,  his  feet  cocked  up  against  the  historic  Table,  while  he 
writes  a  report  of  the  debate  for  the  edification  of  his 
'  See  the  "  Black  Book,"  p.  61. 


58  THE  MOTHER   OF  PARLIAMENTS 

Sovereign.  To  the  political  enthusiast  the  prospect  is  a 
rosy  one.  But  alas  !  it  is  not  every  man  who  can  aspire  to 
the  giddy  heights  of  the  front  bench.  After  many  a  session 
of  laborious  days  and  sleepless  nights,  after  many  a  recess 
devoted  to  the  tiresome  art  known  as  "  nursing "  his  con- 
stituency, after  many  disappointments  and  trials,  our  member 
may  still  find  himself  at  the  bottom  of  the  parliamentary 
ladder.  Even  if  he  ascends  to  what  Mr.  Gladstone  would 
have  called  "measurable  distance"  of  the  top,  his  tenure  is 
precarious ;  in  the  defeat  of  a  Government  at  a  General 
Election  he  too  may  fall.  And  though  his  constituents 
remain  loyal  and  his  seat  secure,  there  arrives  a  day  when 
he  begins  to  weary  of  the  slavery  of  parliamentary  life,  of 
the  drudgery  of  a  political  career.  Like  Macaulay,  he  may 
at  length  come  to  define  politics  as  a  pursuit  from  which  the 
most  that  those  who  are  engaged  in  it  can  expect  is  that  by 
relinquishing  liberal  studies  and  social  pleasures,  by  passing 
nights  without  sleep  and  summers  without  one  glimpse  of  the 
beauty  of  nature,  they  may  attain  "  that  laborious,  that 
invidious,  that  closely  watched  slavery  which  is  mocked  with 
the  name  of  power.",^  When  this  tragic  moment  arrives, 
or  when  through  physical  infirmity,  advancing  years,  or 
penury,  he  wishes  to  bid  a  long  farewell  to  the  scene  of 
his  parliamentary  labours,  he  has  still  a  minor  obstacle  to 
contend  with. 

A  member  cannot  resign  his  seat,  nor  is  it  permissible  for 
him  to  exchange  it  for  any  other.  Only  his  own  death  or 
the  dissolution  of  Parliament  can  enable  him  to  cease  from 
being  a  member,  unless  the  House  itself  declares  his  seat  to 
be  vacant.  Even  expulsion  from  the  House  does  not  prevent 
his  immediate  re-election  by  a  constituency  determined  to 
retain  his  services,  as  was  shown  in  the  case  of  Walpole — 

^  "Edinburgh  Review"  (October,  1838),  vol.  Ixviii.  p.  114.  The  two 
happiest  days  of  a  statesman's  life  are  said  to  be  the  day  when  he  accepts 
high  office  and  the  day  when  he  resigns  it  (Campbell's  "  Lives  of  the 
Chancellors,"  vol.  i.  p.  561).  Lord  Rosebery  defined  the  acceptance  and 
resignation  of  office  as  "the  two  supreme  pleasures — one  ideal,  the 
other  real." 


THE    HOUSE   OF    COMMONS  59 

twice  expelled  from  the  House,  and  re-elected  by  the  voters 
of  Lynn — and  of  Wilkes  and  Bradlaugh.  The  only  thing 
that  can  prevent  a  man  from  sitting  in  the  House,  or  allow  a 
member  to  escape  from  its  service,  is  the  fact  of  his  coming 
within  the  range  of  that  long  list  of  disqualifications  already 
enumerated. 

How  then  can  a  member  vacate  his  seat  in  the  simplest 
fashion  ?  Many  members  would  think  twice  before  becoming 
bankrupt  or  committing  a  felony  in  order  to  avoid  parlia- 
mentary duty.  It  is  not  given  to  every  one  to  be  a  Colonial 
Governor,  an  Auditor  General,  or  even  a  Charity  Com- 
missioner. But,  by  the  merciful  connivance  of  the  powers 
that  be,  it  is  always  possible  for  a  member  to  incapacitate 
himself  by  holding  a  Crown  appointment.  For  this  beneficent 
purpose  two  ancient  stewardships  of  a  purely  nominal  value 
are  upheld,  that  by  accepting  either  of  these  offices  a  member 
may  be  enabled  to  retire  gracefully  from  Parliament. 

The  steward  or  bailiff  of  the  three  Chiltern  Hundreds  of 
Stoke,  Desborough  and  Boneham,  and  the  steward  of  North- 
stead,  were  officers  appointed  by  the  Crown  in  past  ages  to 
look  after  certain  Buckinghamshire  forests  in  which  brigands 
abounded.  The  brigands  are  long  since  dead,  and  the  forests 
themselves  have  been  converted  into  parks  and  pasture  lands, 
but  the  stewardships  remain,  a  convenient  city  of  refuge  for 
members  who  desire  to  escape  from  the  active  strife  of  Parlia- 
ment, to  whom  they  are  sometimes  presented  as  often  as  nine 
times  in  one  session.  "The  parliamentary  constitution  of 
England,"  said  Disraeli,  "was  born  in  the  bosom  of  the 
Chiltern  Hills  ;  as  to  this  day  our  parliamentary  career  is 
terminated  among  its  Hundreds."  ^  And  since  no  county 
is  fraught  with  greater  historical  and  political  interest  than 
Buckinghamshire,  it  is  perhaps  fitting  that  it  should  be 
the  means  of  providing  a  merciful  release  for  the  jaded 
parliamentarian  whose  course  is  run. 

^  Speech  made  to  the  farmers  at  Amersham  Market,  1S47, 


CHAPTER   IV 
THE    PALACE   OF   WESTMINSTER 

PARLIAMENT  maybe  summoned  to  assemble  wherever 
the  king  pleases.  Westminster,  the  site  of  that  royal 
palace  which  has  sheltered  so  many  English  sovereigns, 
from  King  Canute  to  Henry  VIII.,  was  for  centuries  the  most 
natural  meeting-place  for  the  Great  Council  of  the  nation. 
But  many  another  town,  such  as  Winchester,  Bury  St. 
Edmunds,  Leicester,  Coventry,  Reading,  Salisbury,  and  half 
a  dozen  more,  has  at  different  times  been  selected  as  the 
temporary  seat  of  Parliament,  either  to  suit  the  royal  con- 
venience, or  for  other  reasons. 

Of  the  twenty  Parliaments  of  Edward  II.  one  met  at  Ripon, 
one  at  Northampton,  and  three  at  York  and  Lincoln.  In 
Stuart  days  Oxford  was  the  place  chosen  on  two  occasions, 
in  1625  and  in  1665,  when  London  was  being  ravaged  by  the 
Plague.  Since  the  Revolution  of  166S,  however.  Parliament 
has  ceased  to  be  nomadic  in  its  habits  ;  in  its  old  age  it  has 
definitely  settled  down  at  Westminster,  and  there  it  is  likely 
to  remain. 

The  palace  in  which  Canute  first  resided,  within  a  stone's 
throw  of  the  Thames,  was  burnt  to  the  ground  somewhere 
about  the  year  1040.  Edward  the  Confessor  rebuilt  it  ten 
years  later,  and  in  the  days  of  William  Rufus  the  addition  of 
the  Great  Hall  further  enhanced  the  dignity  of  the  palace. 
Here  William  held  his  first  court,  on  his  return  from  Nor- 
mandy, and  since  his  day  a  succession  of  kings  have  made  it 
the  centre  of  innumerable  scenes  of  royal  pomp  and  pageantry. 

William  Rufus  was  a  man    of  large   ideas.      Even   the 

60 


THE   PALACE   OF  WESTMINSTER  6i 

magnificence  of  the  Great  Hall  did  not  entirely  satisfy  his  taste 
for  grandeur.  In  his  imagination  he  had  conceived  a  still  more 
splendid  scheme  of  architecture,  and  was  disappointed  with 
the  size  of  the  new  building.  On  first  entering  to  inspect  it, 
accompanied  by  a  large  military  retinue,  he  overheard  some 
tactless  persons  remark  that,  in  their  opinion,  the  Hall  was 
far  too  large.  With  a  scornful  look  the  King  reduced  these 
critics  to  silence,  explaining  that,  so  far  from  this  being  the 
case,  the  Hall  was  not  half  large  enough,  being,  in  fact,  but  a 
bed-chamber  in  comparison  with  the  building  of  which  he 
intended  it  to  form  part.^ 

By  the  end  of  the  fourteenth  century  Westminster  Hall 
had  fallen  into  disrepair,  and  during  the  reign  of  Richard  II., 
when  the  poet  Chaucer  was  clerk  of  the  works,  it  was  rebuilt, 
the  expense  being  met  by  a  tax  levied  upon  all  foreigners 
in  the  kingdom.  Richard  celebrated  the  event  by  keeping 
Christmas  there  in  a  suitably  seasonable  fashion,  "  with  daily 
justings  and  runnings  at  tilt ;  whereunto  resorted  such  a 
number  of  people  that  there  was  every  day  spent  twenty-eight 
or  twenty-six  oxen,  and  three  hundred  sheep,  besides  fowl 
without  number."  '-^ 

Prior  to  the  days  when  such  feats  of  engineering  as  the 
building  of  the  modern  Thames  Embankment  were  possible, 
the  proximity  of  the  Palace  to  the  river  necessitated  a  system 
of  constant  repair.  Until  confined  within  reasonable  limits, 
the  Thames  showed  a  disposition  to  overflow  its  banks  upon 
the  slightest  provocation,  much  to  the  inconvenience  of  the 
royal  residents  in  the  neighbourhood.  In  1236  the  Palace 
was  completely  flooded,  so  that  "  men  did  row  with  wherries 
in  the  midst  of  it,"  and  six  years  later  a  similar  fate  befell 
Westminster  Hall.  In  1579  the  river  once  more  trespassed 
upon  the  royal  domain,  fish  being  afterwards  found  in  a 
moribund  condition  on  the  floor  of  the  Great  Hall.  The 
latter,  indeed,  continued  to  be  visited  by  periodical  floods  as 
late  as  the  year  1841. 

^  Knight's  "  London,"  vol.  vi.  p.  135. 
-  Stow's  "A  Survey  of  London,"  p.  173. 


62  THE   MOTHER   OF   PARLIAMENTS 

Fire,  too,  seems  to  have  proved  a  constant  menace  to  the 
safety  of  the  palace,  though  at  the  time  of  the  Fire  of  London 
the  Great  Hall  was  one  of  the  few  places  in  which  citizens 
could  store  their  goods  out  of  harm's  way.  In  1299  part  of 
the  palace  was  burnt  to  the  ground,  and  at  the  beginning  of 
the  sixteenth  century  so  great  a  proportion  of  it  fell  a  prey 
to  a  "vehement  conflagration"  that  Henry  VIII.  decided 
to  forsake  it  altogether,  and  removed  his  court  to  Whitehall. 
Since  that  day  royal  personages  have  ceased  to  lodge  at 
the  Palace  of  Westminster,  which  is  still,  however,  nominally 
a  royal  residence,  and  as  such  remains  in  the  custody  of  an 
officer  of  the  King's  household.^ 

^  The  Lord  Ckeat  Chamberlain,  who  holds  an  hereditary  freehold 
office  of  state,  is  the  custodian  of  the  Palace  of  Westminster.  He  was 
originally  an  executive  officer  of  the  King's  household,  appointed  to  look 
after  the  royal  residence.  In  1 133  the  office  was  granted  by  Heniy  I.  to 
Aubrey  de  Vere,  father  of  the  first  Earl  of  Oxford,  and  to  his  heirs. 
Henry  VIII.  gave  the  post  on  several  occasions  for  life  to  different 
favourites,  not  necessarily  of  the  De  Vere  family,  but  since  the  time  of 
Elizabeth  the  Lord  Great  Chamberlainship  has  been  held  without  excep- 
tion by  descendants  of  the  Earl  of  Oxford.  To-day  the  families  of 
Cholmondeley  on  the  one  side,  and  Ancaster  and  Carrington  on  the 
other,  share  the  privileges  of  the  office,  a  representative  of  each  branch 
holding  the  Chamberlainship  in  turn  during  the  lifetime  of  alternate 
sovereigns.  The  Lord  Great  Chamberlain  retains  authority  over  the 
buildings  of  both  Houses,  even  during  the  session,  whenever  Parlia- 
ment is  not  sitting.  Here  his  official  responsibilities  end.  In  former 
times  a  considerable  part  of  his  duties  consisted  in  attending  his 
sovereign  at  the  Coronation,  when  he  was  not  only  expected  to  dress  the 
King,  to  "  carry  the  coif,  swords,  and  gloves,  etc."  ;  but  also  to  undress 
him,  and  to  wait  on  him  at  dinner,  "  having  for  his  fee  the  King's  bed 
and  all  the  furniture  of  his  chamber,  the  night  apparel  and  the  silver 
basin  wherein  the  King  washes,  with  the  towels."  It  is  traditional 
that  if  the  King  sleeps  at  Westminster  he  must  occupy  the  Lord 
Great  Chamberlain's  house.  George  IV.  did  so  on  the  eve  of  his  Corona- 
tion, the  Speaker  of  the  House  of  Commons  handing  over  his  residence 
for  the  purpose  to  the  Lord  Great  Chamberlain  for  a  nominal  fee.  On 
this  occasion  the  officials  in  waiting  on  His  Majesty  spent  a  restless  night. 
Lord  Gwydyr,  the  Deputy  Lord  Great  Chamberlain,  and  his  secretary, 
took  their  stand  on  one  side  of  the  King's  chamber,  and  the  Gentleman 
Usher  of  the  Black  Rod  on  the  other,  and  there  they  remained  until 
morning.''    (See  "The  Gentleman's  Magazine."    July,  1S21.) 


A  - 

—  > 

<  a 

z 

^  ■: 

M  < 

I  § 

•3  !Z 


M    o 


THE   PALACE   OF  WESTMINSTER  63 

The  Great  Hall  still  continued  to  be  used  as  the  most 
appropriate  stage  for  State  ceremonies,  for  coronations  and 
the  banquets  with  which  such  events  were  celebrated.  It  was 
also  the  scene  of  most  of  the  great  State  trials  famous  in 
English  history.  Such  men  as  William  Wallace,  the  Earls  of 
Arundel,  of  Essex,  and  of  Strafford,  were  here  arraigned  upon 
a  charge  of  high  treason  ;  here  Charles  I.  was  condemned  to 
death.  In  Westminster  Hall  Titus  Gates  was  stripped  of  his 
ecclesiastical  habit  and  exposed  to  public  obloquy,  with  a 
placard  upon  his  breast  declaring  his  offence.  Beneath  this 
wide  oak  roof  the  Duchess  of  Kingston  was  tried  for  bigamy, 
much  to  her  delight.  Here,  too,  Warren  Hastings  faced  his 
accusers,  and  triumphed  over  them.  This  is  the  Hall,  as 
Macaulay  says  in  a  well-known  passage,  which  witnessed  the 
just  sentence  of  Bacon  and  the  just  absolution  of  Somers  ; 
the  Hall  where  the  eloquence  of  the  latter  for  a  moment 
awed  and  melted  a  victorious  party  inflamed  with  just  resent- 
ment. This,  we  may  now  add,  is  the  Hall  where  the  body  of 
Gladstone  lay  in  state,  and  the  mortal  remains  of  King 
Edward  VII.  received  the  homage  of  his  sorrowing  subjects. 

No  State  trial  has  been  held  in  Westminster  Hall  since 
Lord  Melville  was  acquitted  there  in  1806,  and  on  the  only 
recent  occasion  on  which  a  member  of  the  House  of  Lords 
was  tried  by  his  peers,  on  July  18,  1901,  the  Royal  Gallery 
of  the  Lords  was  fitted  up  as  a  court. 

For  centuries  the  coronation  feasts,  which  were  held  in 
Westminster  Hall,  provided  the  public  with  a  stately  and 
imposing  spectacle.  Not  the  least  interesting  part  of  the 
ceremony  consisted  in  the  entrance  of  the  King's  Champion, 
clad  in  armour  and  mounted  upon  a  fiery  charger,  who  flung 
down  his  gauntlet  and  challenged  to  mortal  combat  all  who 
dared  to  question  the  monarch's  right  to  the  throne.  The 
feat  required  some  personal  courage,  as  well  as  the  possession 
of  a  docile  steed,  for  if  it  were  not  accomplished  successfully 
the  effect  might  well  be  ludicrous.  Before  the  coronation  of 
George  III.,  Horace  Walpole  relates.  Lord  Talbot  had  spent 
much  care  in  training  his  charger  to  walk  backwards,  so  that 


64  THE   MOTHER  OF   PARLIAMENTS 

it  might  make  a  graceful  exit  from  the  Hall  without  ever 
exposing  its  tail  to  the  royal  gaze.  Unfortunately,  the  lesson 
had  been  too  well  learnt,  and  the  horse  insisted  upon  enter- 
ing the  Hall  backwards,  much  to  the  amusement  of  the 
spectators. 

Sovereigns  are  no  longer  crowned  in  Westminster  Hall, 
but  in  the  Abbey  close  by,  and  no  coronation  feast  has  been 
held  there  since  the  accession  of  George  IV.,  when  the  guests 
repaid  their  sovereign's  hospitality  by  carrying  away  most  of 
his  spoons  as  souvenirs  of  the  event.  The  Hall  has,  how- 
ever, been  the  scene  of  other  less-important  banquets,  as,  for 
instance,  in  1905,  when  the  officers  of  the  visiting  French 
fleet  were  entertained  there  as  the  guests  of  the  British 
nation. 

To  Westminster  Hall,  Henry  II.  summoned  his  Barons 
in  Council,  and  in  the  reign  of  Henry  III.  parliaments  were 
often  held  there.  Gradually,  however,  the  building  became 
devoted  exclusively  to  the  judicial  side  of  the  king's  Great 
Council,  and,  when  Edward  I.  occupied  the  throne  of  England, 
the  Courts  of  King's  Bench  and  Chancery  held  their  meetings 
regularly  at  the  south  end  of  the  Hall.  Peter  the  Great, 
during  a  brief  stay  in  England,  paid  a  visit  to  Westminster 
Hall,  and  was  much  struck  by  the  presence  of  a  number 
of  busy  people  in  long  black  gowns  and  bobtailed  wigs. 
On  being  informed  that  these  were  lawyers,  "  I  have  but 
two  in  my  dominions,"  he  observed  thoughtfully,  "  and  I 
believe  I  shall  hang  one  of  those  directly  I  get  home ! " 

New  buildings  were  erected  in  1738,  on  the  west  side  of 
the  Hall,  to  accommodate  the  judges,  and  when,  about  a 
hundred  and  fifty  years  later,  the  Palace  of  Justice  was  built 
in  the  Strand,  the  representatives  of  the  law  emigrated 
thither  in  a  body. 

The  general  public  for  a  long  time  shared  with  the  lawyers 
the  privilege  of  trading  within  the  precincts  of  Westminster 
Hall.  In  Edward  III.'s  reign  merchants'  stalls  abounded 
there,  being  temporarily  boarded  over  on  the  occasion  of 
State  pageants,  and,  at  a  much  later  date,  Laud  tells  us  in 


THE   PALACE   OF  WESTMINSTER  65 

his  diary,  a  conflagration  in  one  of  these  shops  threatened  to 
destroy  the  entire  building. 

During  the  seventeenth  century,  book  -  sellers,  law  - 
stationers,  and  other  tradesmen  still  plied  their  callings  in 
the  Hall,  undisturbed  by  the  pleadings  of  their  legal  rivals.^ 
On  the  one  side,  as  we  read  in  a  contemporary  chronicle, 
were  to  be  seen  "  Men  with  Baubles  and  Toys,  and  on  the 
other  taken  up  with  the  Fear  of  Judgment,  on  which  depends 
their  inevitable  Destiny.  On  your  Left  Hand  you  hear  a 
nimble  Tongu'd  Sempstress,  with  her  Charming  Treble,  Invite 
you  to  buy  some  of  her  Knick-Knacks :  And  on  your 
Right,  a  Deep-mouth'd  Cryar  commanding  Impossibilities, 
viz.  Silence  to  be  kept  among  Women  and  Lawyers."  -  In 
the  days  of  Pepys,  the  Great  Hall  had  become  a  regular 
meeting-place  for  the  public,  and  was  still  the  most  popular 
market  for  the  sale  of  books.^ 

Trade  has  long  been  banished  from  the  portals  of  West- 
minster Hall,  its  stately  precincts  are  now  desecrated  by  no 
foot  less  worthy  than  that  of  the  Member  of  Parliament  or 
the  Saturday  sight-seer.  In  other  respects  the  Hall  remains 
unchanged.  Save  for  the  retimbering  of  the  roof  in  1820 
with  oak  taken  from  old  men-of-war,  it  stands  to-day 
much  as  it  has  stood  for  centuries.  Structural  altera- 
tions have  occasionally  been  suggested,  but  without  effect. 
One  projected  by  Lord  Grenville,  necessitating  the  removal 
and  raising  of  the  entire  roof,  evoked  many  indignant 
protests.* 

In  New  Palace  Yard,  opposite  the  entrance  of  Westminster 

*  Forster's  "Grand  Remonstrance,"  p.  276,  note. 
^  Brown's  "Amusements,"  pp.  39-40. 

3  "  At  Westminster  Hall,  where  Mrs.  Lane  and  the  rest  of  the  maids 
had  their  white  scarfs,  all  having  been  at  the  burial  of  a  young  bookseller 
in  the  Hall,"  "  Pepys'  Diary,"  20  January,  1659. 

*  "  With  cedar  roof,  and  stony  wall, 
Old  William  Rufus  built  this  hall  ; 
Without  a  roof,  with  scarce  a  wall, 
William  Unroof-us  spoils  it  all." 
Hawkins's  "  Biographical  Sketches,"  vol.  i.  p.  341. 
F 


66  THE   MOTHER   OF   PARLIAMENTS 

Hall,  a  huge  clock-tower  once  stood.  It  had  been  erected  in 
the  reign  of  Edward  I.,  the  cost  being  defrayed  by  a 
fine  levied  on  Sir  Ralph  de  Hengham,  Chief  Justice  of  the 
King's  Bench,  as  a  penalty  for  altering  a  judicial  record  in 
favour  of  a  pauper  litigant.  In  this  tower  hung  a  bell,  known 
as  "  Great  Tom  of  Westminster,"  whose  voice  on  a  clear 
day  could  be  heard  as  far  away  as  Windsor.'  In  1707 
both  tower  and  bell  were  pulled  down,  the  latter  being 
recast  and  presented  to  St.  Paul's  Cathedral  where  it  still 
hangs. 

Near  the  tower  was  a  fountain  from  which  on  great 
occasions  wine  was  made  to  flow  for  the  delectation  of  the 
populace,  while  close  by  stood  the  pillory  in  which  Titus 
Oates,  John  Williams,  the  publisher  of  John  Wilkes's  Norf/i 
Briton,  and  many  other  offenders  against  parliamentary  privi- 
lege, suffered  the  penalty  of  their  crimes. 

Westminster  Hall  lies  nearly  due  north  and  south.  At 
its  south-east  angle,  stretching  towards  the  river,  stands  St. 
Stephen's  Hall,  on  the  site  of  that  famous  Chapel,  founded 
by  King  Stephen  and  called  after  his  sainted  namesake,  which 
was  for  so  long  the  home  of  the  Commons. 

The  Chapel  was  partly  destroyed  by  fire  in  1298,  but 
was  subsequently  restored  at  great  cost  by  Edward  III.,  who 
also  built  an  adjacent  belfry  of  stone  and  timber  containing 
three  huge  bells  which  were  rung  at  "  coronations,  triumphs, 
funerals  of  princes,  and  their  obits."  ^  After  the  Reformation 
the  thirteenth  century  decorations  which  originally  adorned 
the  walls  of  St.  Stephen's  Chapel  were  whitewashed  and 
covered  with  boards,  and  the  building  was  given  over  to 
Parliament. 

*  There  is  a  well-known  story  of  a  sentry  at  the  Castle  who 
was  accused  of  sleeping  at  his  post,  and  secured  his  acquittal  by 
proving  that  he  had  heard  "  Great  Tom "  strike  thirteen  times  at 
midnight — a  fact  which  was  corroborated  by  the  evidence  of  independent 
witnesses. 

~  These  bells  must  have  been  extremely  unpopular,  since  it  was  fabled 
that  their  ringing  "  soured  all  the  drink  in  the  town."  Stow^s  "  Survey 
of  London,"  p.  175. 


THE   PALACE   OF  WESTMINSTER  ^-j 

Though  the  Three  Estates  originally  sat  together,  they 
seem  to  have  deliberated  separately.  Parliament  used  to 
meet  occasionally  in  the  Priory  Church  of  Blackfriars 
Monastery,  but  when  the  Houses  parted  company  a  chamber 
in  the  Palace  of  Westminster  was  reserved  for  the  Lords, 
while  the  Commons  retired  to  the  Chapter  House  of  the 
Abbey.  Later  on  they  assembled  in  or  near  Westminster 
Hall — Richard  H.  held  a  parliament  in  a  building  erected  for 
the  purpose  outside  the  Great  Hall — and  finally,  about  the 
year  1550,  St.  Stephen's  Chapel  was  fixed  upon  as  the  regular 
meeting-place  of  the  Commons. 

The  Chapel  was  an  oblong  building,  but  half  as  long  and 
half  as  broad  as  Westminster  Hall,  and  most  of  the  floor 
space  was  occupied  by  the  Lobby.  It  was  a  gloomy  and 
narrow  chamber,  and  what  the  German  traveller  Moritz  calls 
"  mean-looking."  At  the  western  end  was  a  gallery  to  which 
members  ascended  by  means  of  a  ladder  near  the  southern 
window.^  At  the  eastern  end  stood  the  Speaker's  chair,  and 
opposite  it  the  famous  bar  where  so  many  persons  have  stood, 
either  as  prisoners,  witnesses,  or  patriots.  Here  Pepys,  buoyed 
up  with  brandy,  appeared  to  answer  the  charges  that  had 
been  brought  against  the  Navy  Ofiice  in  id^j-Z.  Here,  a 
century  and  a  half  later,  Mrs.  Clarke,  the  Duke  of  York's 
discarded  mistress,  was  examined  for  two  hours  on  the  subject 
of  his  alleged  corrupt  sale  of  commissions — an  ordeal  from 
which  she  emerged  triumphantly.  At  this  bar  victorious 
soldiers,  from  the  days  of  Schomberg  to  those  of  Wellington, 
have  received  the  thanks  of  Parliament  for  the  services  they 
/endered  to  their  country.  And  many  a  trembling  prisoner 
has  stood  here  to  receive  sentence  or  reprimand  at  the  mouth 
of  the  Speaker. 

On  either  side  of  the  old  House  were  ranged  rows  of 
wooden  benches,  hard   and  comfortless,  with  neither   backs 

^  Speaker  Lenthall  once  rebuked  a  youthful  member  who  was  sitting 
perched  upon  the  topmost  rung,  Ustening  to  a  debate,  and  bade  him 
come  down  and  not  "  sit  upon  the  ladder  as  though  he  were  going  to  be 
hanged."     Forster's  "  historical  Sketches,"  vol.  i.  p.  82. 


68  THE   MOTHER   OF   PARLIAMENTS 

nor  covering.    Not  even  were  Ministers  provided  with  padded 

seats. 

"  No  satin  covering  decks  th'  unsightly  boards  ; 
No  velvet  cushion  holds  the  youthful  Lords  ; 
And  claim  illustrious  tails  such  small  regard  ? 
Ah  !    Tails  too  tender  for  a  seat  so  hard  !  "  ^ 

St.  Stephen's  Chapel  was  in  size  quite  inadequate  to  the 
needs  of  legislators— the  only  point,  perhaps,  in  which  it 
resembled  the  present  House  of  Commons.  David  Hume 
complained  perpetually  of  the  lack  of  room  ;  while  Cobbett 
cynically  referred  to  it  as  "  the  little  hole  into  which  we  are 
all  crammed  to  make  the  laws  by  which  this  great  kingdom 
is  governed."  2  Lined  with  dark  wainscot  and  lit  by  three 
chandeliers,  the  gloomy  chamber  did  not  impress  the  stranger 
with  the  dignity  or  splendour  of  parliaments,  and  a  visitor 
to  St.  Stephen's  might  well  have  been  excused  for  mistaking 
the  House  of  Commons  for  a  den  of  thieves  or  a  crew  of 
midnight  conspirators.^ 

As  was  only  natural,  the  dingy  surroundings  exercised  a 
detrimental  influence  upon  the  manners  of  members.  Moritz 
was  surprised  to  see  many  of  them  lying  stretched  out  at  full 
length  on  the  uncomfortable  benches  fast  asleep,  while  others 
cracked  nuts  or  ate  oranges.  "The  many  rude  things  the 
members  said  to  one  another,"  he  observes  sadly,  "struck 
me  much."  ^  Not  only  was  the  House  squalid  and  dirty,  it 
was  also  infested  with  rats.  Speaker  Manners  Sutton  told 
Thomas  Moore  that  the  only  time  he  had  ever  laughed  while 
occupying  the  Chair  was  during  a  debate  in  which  members 
of  the  Opposition  had  been  squabbling  fiercely  together,  when 
he  saw  a  large  rat  issue  from  beneath  the  front  Opposition 
bench  and  walk  deliberately  across  to  the  Treasury  side  of 
the  House.'^ 

The  Lobby  of  St.  Stephen's  was,  if  possible,  the  scene 

1  "  The  Rolliad." 

2  Balling's  "  Historical  Characters,"  vol.  ii.  p.  175. 

3  Knight's  "  London,"  vol.  ii.  p.  68. 

*  Pinkerton's  "Voyages,"  vol.  ii.  p.  508. 
^  Moore's  "  Memoirs,"  vol.  iv.  p.  320. 


THE   PALACE   OF  WESTMINSTER  69 

of  even  greater  discomfort  and  squalor  than  was  the  House 
itself.  It  was  perpetually  crowded,  not  only  with  members 
and  their  servants,  but  also  with  the  general  public,  and  was 
"  as  noisy  as  a  Jews'  synagogue."  Pearson,  for  many  years 
head  doorkeeper  of  the  Commons,  tells  us  that  orange  women 
traded  there  regularly,  selling  their  wares  to  thirsty  politicians 
during  the  sitting  of  the  House.  One  old  woman  named 
Drybutter  was  a  great  favourite  among  a  certain  class  of 
members,  and  knew  more  of  their  private  affairs  (we  are 
told)  than  "  all  the  old  bawds  in  Christendom  put  together,"  ^ 
Another,  IMullins  by  name,  "  a  young,  plump,  crummy,  rosy 
looking  wench,  with  clean  white  silk  stockings,  Turkey  leather 
shoes,  pink  silk  sJiort  petticoat,  to  show  her  ancle  to  the 
young  bulls  and  old  goats  of  the  House,"  appealed  especially 
to  the  more  amorous  members. 

"  Mark  how  her  winning  smiles  and  'witching  eyes 
On  yonder  unfledg'd  orator  she  tries  ! 
Mark  with  what  grace  she  oft'ers  to  his  hand 
The  tempting  orange,  pride  of  China's  land  !  "  - 

She  was  said  to  have  killed  more  men  with  her  eyes  and 
sighs  than  did  many  a  general  with  his  canister  and  grape- 
shot  in  the  American  war.  Oranges  and  biscuits  were  not,  as 
may  be  imagined,  this  fascinating  creature's  sole  stock  in  trade. 

In  Stuart  days  the  walls  of  St.  Stephen's  Chapel  were 
temporarily  brightened  by  the  presence  of  the  tapestry  which 
Charles  II.  hung  there.  This,  however,  was  taken  down 
in  1706.  About  a  hundred  years  later,  when  alterations 
were  being  made  to  provide  accommodation  for  the  recently 
added  Irish  members,  the  old  thirteenth-century  mural  paint- 
ings were  discovered  beneath  the  wainscot.  No  one,  however, 
seems  to  have  realised  their  value,  and  they  were  carelessly 
allowed  to  perish,  sharing  the  fate  that  befell  the  curious  old 
tapestries  which  once  adorned  the  walls  of  the  famous  Painted 
Chamber. 

This  Painted  Chamber,  which  lay  between  the  two  Houses 

^  Pearson's  "  Political  Dictionary,"  p.  37. 
2  "  The  Rolliad." 


70  THE   MOTHER   OF   PARLIAMENTS 

of  Parliament,  was  the  original  Council  Chamber  of  the 
Norman  kings.  Here  parliaments  were  opened,  and  con- 
ferences of  both  Houses  held.  Its  walls  were  hung  with 
tapestry  on  which  were  depicted  various  scenes  from  the 
Siege  of  Troy.  This  was  removed  at  the  commencement 
of  the  nineteenth  century  and  thrown  into  a  cellar,  being 
subsequently  sold  in  1820  for  the  paltry  sum  of  ;^io,  and 
beneath  it  was  found  the  series  of  paintings — representing 
the  Wars  of  the  Maccabees  and  scenes  from  the  life  of 
Edward  the  Confessor — from  which  the  Chamber  derived 
its  name.  It  was  in  this  apartment  that  the  death  warrant 
of  Charles  I.  was  signed,  when  Oliver  Cromwell  and  Henry 
Martin  distinguished  themselves  by  childishly  blacking  one 
another's  faces  with  ink.  Here  Charles  II.  lay  in  state  after 
his  death,  as  did  also  Chatham  and  William  Pitt. 

Adjoining  the  Painted  Chamber  was  the  room  in  which 
the  Peers  formerly  met  and  sat,  and  which  may  therefore  be 
styled  the  old  House  of  Lords.  The  Prince's  Chamber, 
afterwards  the  Robing  Room  of  the  Lords,  was  decorated 
with  elaborate  tapestries,  of  Dutch  workmanship,  representing 
the  destruction  of  the  Spanish  Armada,  which  had  been  pre- 
sented to  Queen  Elizabeth  by  the  States  of  Holland,  and 
subsequently  sold  by  Lord  Howard  to  James  I.  These 
tapestries  were  afterwards  transferred  to  the  Court  of  Requests, 
and,  when  the  greater  part  of  the  Palace  of  Westminster  was 
destroyed  by  fire  in  October,  1834,  perished  in  the  flames. 

It  was  proposed,  in  1834,  to  find  temporary  quarters  for 
the  Court  of  Bankruptcy  in  the  old  tally-room  of  the  exchequer. 
For  this  purpose  it  became  necessary  to  remove  several  cart- 
loads of  old  "  tallies "  which  had  accumulated  during  past 
years  and  were  likely  to  interfere  with  the  arrangements. 
These  tallies  were  nothing  but  pieces  of  wood  on  which  were 
recorded  by  a  primitive  method  of  notches  the  sums  paid  into 
the  exchequer.  The  system  dated  from  the  Conquest,  and, 
though  it  had  been  officially  abolished  in  1783,  was  still  in 
use  as  late  as  1826.  Old  tallies  were  usually  burnt  on 
bonfires  in  Tothill  fields  or  in  Palace  Yard,  but  in  1834  some 


THE   PALACE   OF  WESTMINSTER  71 

ofificial  of  an  economical  turn  of  mind  decided  to  make  use 
of  them  as  fuel  for  the  stoves  of  the  House  of  Lords.  The 
workmen  engaged  upon  the  work  shared  with  all  honest 
British  labourers  the  desire  to  finish  their  job  as  quickly  as 
possible  and  get  home  to  their  tea.  They  consequently  piled 
the  tallies  into  the  stoves  with  more  energy  than  discretion, 
little  dreaming  of  the  possible  effect  upon  the  overheated 
furnaces. 

At  four  o'clock  in  the  afternoon  of  the  i6th  of  October, 
some  visitors  who  were  being  shown  round  the  House  of 
Lords  observed  that  the  floor  was  very  hot  under  their  feet, 
and  that  the  Chamber  seemed  to  be  half  filled  with  smoke. 
They  were  reassured  by  the  officials,  and  no  further  notice 
was  taken  of  their  remarks.  Two  hours  later  the  tallies  had 
done  their  work,  the  flues  were  red-hot,  one  of  the  walls  was 
well  alight,  and  flames  were  seen  to  be  issuing  from  the 
windows  of  the  House,  The  alarm  was  immediately  given. 
Fire-engines  were  hastily  summoned  to  the  scene,  and  police 
and  troops  assembled  in  force  in  Palace  Yard. 

The  appliances  for  coping  with  any  but  the  mildest  of 
conflagrations  were  then  altogether  inadequate,  and  it  soon 
became  evident  that  most  of  the  Palace  was  doomed.  Vast 
crowds  had  meanwhile  gathered  to  witness  the  destruction  of 
the  parliament  building,  while  peers  and  members  hastened 
to  Westminster  to  assist  in  the  work  of  salvage.  Hume,  who 
had  so  often  tried  to  obtain  for  the  Commons  a  Chamber 
more  suitable  to  their  needs,  was  one  of  the  first  to  arrive, 
and  did  yeoman  service  in  saving  the  contents  of  the  House  of 
Commons  Library.^  He  was  chaffingly  accused  of  being  the 
author  of  the  fire,  and,  as  the  ancient  home  of  the  Commons 
rose  in  smoke  to  the  sky,  his  friends  declared  that  his  motion 
for  a  new  House  was  being  "  carried  without  a  division." 
Lord  Althorp,  another  interested  spectator,  cared  even  less 
for  the  preservation  of  St.  Stephen's  Chapel  than  did  Hume. 
"  D the  House  of  Commons !  "  he  cried,  "  Save,  oh,  save 

*  A  comparatively  modern  institution  which  did  not  exist  until  the 
year  181 8. 


^2  THE   MOTHER   OF   PARLIAMENTS 

the  Hall  1 "  ^  His  wish  was  gratified,  and  Westminster  Hall, 
tocfcther  with  the  old  House  of  Lords  and  the  Painted 
Chamber,  was  among  the  few  buildings  snatched  from  the 
flames.  St.  Stephen's  Crypt,  situated  underneath  the  old 
House  of  Commons,  survived  not  only  the  fire,  but  also  the 
subsequent  rebuilding. 

When  the  flames  had  at  last  been  extinguished,  or  had 
died  down  from  sheer  lack  of  fuel,  and  the  extent  of  the 
damage  had  been  ascertained,  Parliament  assembled  once 
more — the  Lords  in  what  remained  of  their  library,  the 
Commons  in  one  of  the  surviving  committee  rooms.  It  was 
then  decided  temporarily  to  fit  up  the  old  House  of  Lords 
for  the  use  of  the  Commons,  and  to  relegate  the  Peers  to  the 
Painted  Chamber,  until  steps  could  be  taken  to  provide  the 
Great  Council  of  the  nation  with  a  more  suitable  home. 

In  the  following  year,  British  architects  were  invited  to 
submit  designs  for  the  new  Houses  of  Parliament,  which  it 
was  proposed  to  erect  on  the  site  of  the  old  Palace  of  West- 
minster, and,  in  1S36,  the  design  of  Charles  Barry  was  selected 
from  some  ninety-seven  others.  With  as  little  delay  as 
possible  the  work  was  put  into  the  hands  of  the  successful 
competitor,  and  on  April,  27,  1840,  the  first  stone  was  laid 
without  ceremony  by  the  architect's  wife. 

From  that  moment  until  the  completion  of  the  building, 
poor  Barry's  life  was  made  a  burden  to  him  by  the  continual 
petty  interference  of  the  authorities.  Perpetual  squabbles 
arose  between  the  architect  and  the  superintending  oflficials 
over  every  point  of  the  construction — even  the  contract  for 
the  manufacture  of  the  clock  gave  rise  to  an  acrimonious 
controversy — while  the  question  of  expense  was  a  never 
ending  source  of  worry  and  difficulty. 

Barry's  original  design  had  included  the  enclosing  of  New 
Palace  Yard,  and  the  building  of  a  huge  gate-tower  at  the 
angles.  He  had  also  proposed  to  make  Victoria  Tower  the 
chief  feature  of  a  big  quadrangle,  whence  a  splendid  pro- 
cessional approach  should  extend  to  Buckingham  Palace. 
'  Miss  Martineau's  "History  of  the  Peace,"  vol.  iii.  p.  147. 


THE   PALACE   OF  WESTMINSTER  73 

The  cost  of  such  a  scheme,  however,  precluded  its  execution, 
and  the  architect  had  to  content  himself  with  the  present 
magnificent  group  of  buildings,  too  well  known  to  require 
detailed  description,  which  form  the  best  possible  memorial 
to  Sir  Charles  Barry's  genius.^ 

In  1852  Queen  Victoria  entered  the  new  Houses  of  Parlia- 
ment for  the  first  time,  and  some  eight  years  later  the  whole 
building  was  completed. 

The  fire  of  1834  proved  a  blessing  in  disguise.  The 
ancient  congeries  of  huddled  buildings,  to  which  additions 
had  been  made  in  various  styles  by  so  many  kings,  and  which 
went  by  the  name  of  the  Palace  of  Westminster,  had  long 
ceased  to  provide  a  suitable  home  for  the  Mother  of  Par- 
liaments. From  the  ashes  of  the  royal  residence  arose  at 
length  a  structure  worthy  to  rank  with  any  legislative  build- 
ing in  the  world,  and  adequate  to  the  requirements  of  that 
national  council  which  controls  the  destiny  of  the  British 
Empire. 

Towering  above  both  Houses  stands  the  lofty  clock- 
tower  which  is  one  of  the  landmarks  of  the  metropolis. 
From  its  summit  "  Big  Ben  " — the  successor  to  "  Great  Tom 
of  Westminster  " — booms  forth  the  hours,  while  still  higher 
burns  that  nightly  light  which  shows  to  a  sleeping  city  that 
the  faithful  Commons  remain  vigilant  and  at  work.^ 

The  new  Upper  Chamber,  with  its  harmonious  decorations 
of  gilt  and  stained  glass,  its  crimson  benches,  and  its  atmo- 
sphere of  dignity  and  repose,  supplies  a  perfect  stage  for  the 
leisurely  deliberations  of  our  hereditary  legislators,  and  forms 
a  becoming  background  for  such  picturesque  pageants  as  the 
Opening  of  Parliament. 

^  Barry  was  assisted  in  his  work  by  another  well-known  artist,  Augustus 
Welby  Pugin.  The  latter's  son  afterwards  claimed  for  his  father  the 
honour  of  being  the  real  designer  of  the  Houses  of  Parliament,  but  his 
efforts  to  wrest  the  laurels  from  Barry's  brow  met  with  little  success. 

2  Big  Ben  was  so  named  after  Sir  Benjamin  Hall,  First  Commissioner 
of  Works.  The  light  is  extinguished  by  an  official  in  the  House  of 
Commons  by  means  of  an  electric  switch,  the  moment  the  Speaker's 
question  "  that  the  House  do  now  adjourn  "  has  been  agreed  to. 


74  THE   MOTHER   OF   PARLIAMENTS 

The  present  House  of  Commons,  though  too  small  to 
accommodate  a  full  assemblage  of  its  members,  makes  up  in 
comfort  for  what  it  may  lack  in  space.  The  Chamber  is 
illuminated  by  a  strong  light  from  the  glass  roof  above  ;  the 
green  benches  are  cushioned  and  comfortable.  At  one  end 
is  the  Speaker's  chair,  and  in  front  of  it  the  table — that 
"substantial  piece  of  furniture,"  as  Disraeli  called  it,  when 
he  thanked  Providence  that  its  bulk  was  interposed  between 
Mr.  Gladstone  and  himself — upon  which  Sir  Robert  Peel 
used  to  strike  resonant  blows  at  regular  two-minute  intervals 
during  his  speeches.  On  this  table  lies  the  heavy  despatch- 
box  which  countless  Premiers  have  thumped,  and  which  still 
bears  the  impress  of  Gladstone's  signet  ring.  Here,  too, 
reposes  the  mace,  that  ancient  symbol  of  the  royal  authority. 

The  mace  is,  perhaps,  the  most  important  article  of  furni- 
ture— if  it  can  be  so  described — in  the  House.  Its  absence  or 
loss  is  an  even  more  appalling  catastrophe  than  would  be  the 
absence  of  the  Speaker.  It  is  possible  to  provide  a  substitute 
for  the  latter,  but  there  is  no  deputy-mace,  and  without  it 
the  House  cannot  be  held  to  be  properly  constituted.  The 
present  mace  is  engraved  with  the  initials  "  C.  R."  and 
the  royal  arms,  and  is  the  one  that  was  made  at  the 
Restoration,  to  replace  Cromwell's  "bauble,"  which  dis- 
appeared with  the  Crown  plate  in  1649.  It  is  kept  at  the 
Tower  of  London  when  the  House  is  not  sitting,  and  the 
fact  that  its  absence  prevents  the  conduct  of  any  business 
has  been,  on  one  occasion  at  least,  the  cause  of  grave 
inconvenience.  In  the  middle  of  the  last  century  Parliament 
adjourned  for  the  day  in  order  to  attend  a  great  naval  review 
at  Spithead,  and  was  timed  to  meet  again  at  10  p.m.  The 
special  return-train  containing  members  of  the  House  of 
Commons  was  run  in  two  portions,  and  the  official  who 
held  the  key  of  the  mace-cupboard  happened  to  be  travelling 
in  the  second.  As  this  was  an  hour  late  in  arriving,  the 
House  had  to  postpone  its  meeting  until  eleven  at  night.^ 

Upon  the  position  of  the  mace  a  great  deal  depends. 
*  Mowbray's  "  Seventy  Years  at  Westminster,"  p.  90. 


THE   PALACE   OF  WESTMINSTER  75 

When  the  mace  lies  iipon  the  table,  says  Hatsell,  the  House 
is  a  House  ;  "  when  under,  it  is  a  Committee.  When  out  of 
the  House,  no  business  can  be  done  ;  \7\\tr\  from  the  table  and 
upon  the  Sergeant's  shoulder,  the  Speaker  alone  manages." 
On  the  famous  occasion  in  1626,  when  Sir  John  Eliot 
offered  a  remonstrance  against  "tonnage  and  poundage," 
when  Speaker  Finch  refused  to  put  the  question,  and  the 
House  almost  came  to  blows,  Sergeant-at-Arms  Edward 
Grimston  tried  to  close  the  sitting  by  removing  the  mace. 
At  once  a  fiery  member,  Sir  Miles  Hobart,  seized  it  from 
him,  replaced  it  on  the  table,  locked  the  door  of  the  House, 
and  put  the  key  in  his  pocket,  thus  excluding  Black  Rod, 
who  was  on  his  way  to  the  Commons  with  a  message  from 
the  king. 

The  Sergeant-at-Arms  is  custodian  of  the  mace.  Attired 
in  his  tight-fitting  black  coat,  knee-breeches,  and  buckled 
shoes,  with  his  sword  at  his  side,  he  carries  it  ceremoniously 
upon  his  shoulder  whenever  he  accompanies  the  Speaker  in 
or  out  of  the  Chamber.  He  is  also,  as  we  shall  see,  respon- 
sible for  the  maintenance  of  order  within  the  precincts  of 
the  House,  and  is  provided  with  a  chair  near  the  Bar, 
whence  he  can  obtain  a  good  view  of  the  whole  Chamber. 

The  arrangements  made  for  the  convenience  and  personal 
comfort  of  a  modern  legislator  are  of  the  most  elaborate  and 
thoughtful  kind.  Members  of  the  Government,  Whips,  and 
the  Leader  of  the  Opposition  are  provided  with  private  rooms 
in  which  to  do  their  work.  The  needs  of  humbler  politicians 
are  no  less  carefully  considered.  By  means  of  an  intricate 
system  of  ventilation  the  atmosphere  of  both  Houses  is  main- 
tained at  an  equable  temperature,  summer  and  winter.  The 
very  air  inhaled  by  our  politicians  is  so  cleansed  and  rarefied 
by  a  system  of  water-sprays,  of  cotton-wool  screens  and  ice- 
chambers,  that  it  reaches  their  lungs  in  a  filtered  condition, 
free  from  all  those  impurities  of  dust  and  fog  which  are  part 
of  the  less-favoured  Londoner's  daily  pabulum. 

The  statesman  who  seeks  a  momentary'  relaxation  from 
the    arduous    duties    of  the    Chamber   can    find    repose    in 


76  THE   MOTHER   OF   PARLIAMENTS 

comfortable  smoking-rooms  where  easy-chairs  abound.  He 
may  stroll  upon  the  Terrace  in  the  cool  of  the  evening,  enjoy- 
ing the  society  of  such  lady  friends  as  he  may  have  invited  to 
tea,  and  watching  the  stately  procession  of  barges  and  steamers 
that  flows  by  him.  (Occasionally  the  barges  are  loaded  with 
unsavoury  refuse,  of  which  his  scandalized  nostrils  are  made 
unpleasantly  aware.  Sometimes,  too,  some  wag  in  a  passing 
excursion-boat  facetiously  bids  him  return  to  his  work  in 
the  House.)  Heated  by  an  unusually  warm  debate,  or  tired 
out  by  a  lengthy  sitting,  he  may  retire  to  spend  a  pleasant 
half-hour  in  luxurious  bathrooms,  whence  division  bells 
summon  him  in  vain.  His  intellectual  wants  are  ministered 
to  in  well-furnished  libraries,  whose  courteous  custodians  are 
ever  ready  to  impart  information,  to  look  up  parliamentary 
precedents,  and  otherwise  to  add  to  his  store  of  knowledge. 
His  inner  man  is  generously  catered  for  by  a  Kitchen  Com- 
mittee, composed  of  the  gourmets  of  the  House,  who  choose 
his  wine  and  cigars,  and  watch  over  the  cooking  of  his  food 
with  a  vigilant  and  fastidious  eye.  His  meals  are  appetising 
and  at  the  same  time  inexpensive,  and,  as  he  sits  in  the 
spacious  dining-rooms  set  apart  for  his  use,  his  mind  may 
travel  back  with  kindly  scorn  to  the  days  when  his  political 
ancestors  drank  their  cups  of  soup  at  Alice's  coffee-house, 
munched  the  homely  fare  supplied  in  Bellamy's  kitchen, 
or  satisfied  their  hunger  in  even  simpler  fashion  on  the 
benches  of  the  House  itself.  Lord  Morpeth,  who  was  a 
Minister  of  the  Crown  in  1840,  used  always  to  suck 
oranges  on  the  Treasury  bench  during  the  course  of  his 
own  speeches.  Fox  ate  innumerable  dry  biscuits  on  the 
hottest  nights.  David  Hume,  whose  devotion  to  duty  pre- 
vented him  from  leciving  his  seat  in  the  Chamber,  was  in  the 
habit  of  providing  himself  with  a  generous  supply  of  pears, 
which  he  consumed  while  his  less  conscientious  colleagues 
were  slaking  their  thirst  in  Bellamy's  finest  port.^  During  a 
twenty-one  hours'  sitting  in  August,  1880,  a  member  (Mr.  A.  M. 

*  P'rancis'  "Orators  of  the  Age,"  p.  212,  and  Grant's   "Random 
collections,"  p.  7. 


THE   PALACE   OF  WESTMINSTER  'J^ 

Sullivan)  brought  a  large  bag  of  buns  into  the  House,  and 
enjoyed  what  Mr.  Labouchere  called  "  a  palpable  supper."  ^ 
The  sight  of  a  member  of  Parliament  enjoying  an  al  fresco 
meal  under  the  eye  of  the  Speaker  would  to-day  arouse 
indignant  shouts  of  "  Order  !  "  Even  the  simple  sandwich  is 
taboo  in  the  Chamber  of  either  House,  and  nothing  more 
solid  or  more  potent  than  a  glass  of  pure  well-water,  or 
perhaps  an  egg-flip,  can  be  partaken  of  during  debate. 

Could  Pitt  return  to  the  scene  of  his  former  triumphs,  he 
would  indeed  marvel  at  the  splendours  of  the  modern  parlia- 
mentary restaurant — Pitt,  whose  thoughts  even  upon  his  death- 
bed are  said  to  have  reverted  lovingly  to  the  delights  of  the 
old  House  of  Commons  kitchen.  "  I  think  I  could  eat  one  of 
Bellamy's  pork  pies  "  were  the  great  statesman's  last  words 
as  he  expired  at  Putney  in  January,  1806,  and  it  was  no 
doubt  at  Bellamy's  humble  board  that  he  drank  many  a 
bottle  of  that  wine  for  which  he  entertained  so  strong  a 
predilection. 

Pearson,  the  famous  doorkeeper  of  the  House  of  Commons, 
has  described  Bellamy's  as  "  a  damn'd  good  house,  upstairs, 
where  I  have  drank  many  a  pipe  of  red  port.  Here  the 
members,  who  cannot  say  more  than  'Yes'  or  'No'  below, 
can  speechify  for  hours  to  Mother  Bellamy  about  beef-steaks 
and  pork-chops.  Sir  Watkin  Lewes  always  dresses  them 
there  himself ;  and  I'll  be  curst  if  he  ben't  a  choice  hand  at 
a  beef-steak  and  a  bottle,  as  well  as  a  pot  and  a  pipe."  ^ 

Dickens,  in  his  "  Sketches  by  Boz,"  has  left  a  picture  of 
that  old-fashioned  eating-room,  with  the  large  open  fire,  the 
roasting-jack,  the  gridiron,  the  deal  tables  and  wax  candles, 
the  damask  linen  cloths,  and  the  bare  floor,  where  peers  and 
members  of  Parliament  assembled  with  their  friends  ^  to  sit 
over  their  modest  meals  until  it  was  time  for  a  division,  or, 

1  T.  P.  O'Connor's  "  Gladstone's  House  of  Commons,"  p.  88. 

^  Pearson's  "  Political  Dictionary,"  p.  ig. 

3  "25  April,  1822.  Eat  cold  meat  at  Bellamy's  (introduced  by 
Lambton)  ;  and  did  not  leave  the  House  till  near  two." — Thomas  Moore's 
"  Memoirs,"  vol.  iii.  p.  346. 


78  THE  MOTHER  OF  PARLIAMENTS 

as  Shell  says,  "  the  whipper-in  aroused  them  to  the  only 
purpose  for  which  their  existence  was  recognized." 

Old  Bellamy,  a  wine-merchant  by  profession,  was  in  1773 
appointed  Deputy-Housekeeper  to  the  House  of  Commons, 
and  provided  with  a  kitchen,  a  dining-room,  and  a  small 
subsidy  to  cover  his  expenses  as  parliamentary  caterer.  After 
nearly  forty  years'  service  in  this  capacity  he  was  succeeded 
by  his  son  John,  who  continued  to  control  the  culinary  depart- 
ment until  well  into  the  last  century.  Refreshments  of  a 
serious  kind  were  not  really  required  by  politicians  until  the 
days  when  Parliament  took  to  sitting  late  at  night.  In  1848, 
however,  Bellamy's  system  of  supplying  members  with  food 
was  not  considered  sufficiently  adequate,  and  a  select  com- 
mittee was  appointed  to  inquire  into  it.  As  soon  as  Parlia- 
ment reassembled  in  the  new  Palace  of  Westminster,  after 
the  fire,  the  catering  of  the  House  of  Commons  was  taken 
over  by  a  Kitchen  Committee,  while  that  of  the  Lords  was 
placed  in  the  hands  of  a  contractor. 

In  the  days  of  the  Bellamys  the  charges  for  solid  refresh- 
ments were  not  really  high — the  caterer  relied  very  largely  for 
his  profits  upon  the  sale  of  wine — but  in  comparison  with  the 
tariff  of  to-day  they  must  appear  exorbitant.  For  half-a- 
crown  Bellamy  provided  his  patrons  with  a  meal  consisting 
of  cold  meat,  bread  and  cheese  ;  double  that  sum  secured  a 
liberal  dinner,  which  included  tart  and  a  salad.  Claret  cost 
los.  a  bottle,  while  a  similar  quantity  of  port  and  madeira 
was  to  be  had  for  6s.  or  Ss.  To-day  a  member  of  Parliament 
can  be  supplied  with  a  dinner  of  several  courses  for  the 
modest  sum  of  is.,  and  every  item  on  the  daily  bill  of  fare 
is  proportionately  inexpensive. 

Bellamy's  was  not  only  the  eating-place  of  Parliament ;  it 
also  partook  of  some  of  the  qualities  of  the  modern  smoking- 
room  as  a  refuge  from  debate.  The  sudden  concourse  of 
members  who  came  hurrying  into  the  kitchen  as  soon  as  a 
bore  rose  to  his  feet  in  the  House  has  been  amusingly  described 
by  Shell  in  his  essay  on  John  Leslie  Foster.  Poor  Mr.  Foster 
seems  to  have  exercised  an  extraordinarily  clearing  effect  upon 


THE   PALACE   OF  WESTMINSTER  79 

the  House,  The  first  words  of  his  speech  were  the  signal  for 
a  unanimous  excursion  of  his  fellows,  and  he  was  left  in  full 
possession  of  that  solitude  which  he  ever  had  the  unrivalled 
power  of  creating.  Members  hastened  to  the  kitchen  where 
the  tiresome  voice  of  the  parliamentary  bore  could  not 
penetrate,  and  there  indulged  themselves  in  conversation, 
eked  out  with  tea  or  stronger  beverages.  "  The  scene  which 
Bellamy's  presents  to  a  stranger  is  striking  enough,"  says 
Shell.  "  Two  smart  girls,  whose  briskness  and  neat  attire 
made  up  for  their  want  of  beauty,  and  for  the  invasions  of 
time,  of  which  their  cheeks  showed  the  traces,  helped  out  tea 
in  a  room  in  the  corridor.  It  was  pleasant  to  observe  the 
sons  of  dukes  and  marquises,  and  the  possessors  of  twenties 
and  thirties  of  thousands  a  year,  gathered  round  these  damsels, 
and  soliciting  a  cup  of  that  beverage  which  it  was  their  office 
to  administer.  These  Bellamy  barmaids  seemed  so  familiarized 
with  their  occupation  that  they  went  through  it  with  perfect 
nonchalance,  and  would  occasionally  turn  with  petulance,  in 
which  they  asserted  the  superiority  of  their  sex  to  rank  and 
opulence,  from  the  noble  or  wealthy  suitors  for  a  draught  of 
tea,  by  whom  they  were  surrounded."  The  unfortunate  Irish 
members,  we  are  told,  were  regarded  with  a  peculiar  disdain, 
being  continually  reminded  of  their  provinciality  by  the 
scornful  looks  of  these  parliamentary  Hebes,  who  treated 
them  "  as  mere  colonial  deputies  should  be  received  in  the 
purlieus  of  the  State."  Dickens,  too,  describes  how  one  of  the 
waitresses,  Jane  by  name,  who  was  something  of  a  character, 
would  playfully  dig  the  handle  of  a  fork  into  the  arm  of  some 
too  amorous  member  who  sought  to  detain  her.^  "  I  passed 
from  these  ante-chambers  to  the  tavern,"  continues  Sheil, 
"where  I  found  a  number  of  members  assembled  at  dinner. 
Half  an  hour  had  passed  away,  tooth-picks  and  claret  were 
now  beginning  to  appear,  and  the  business  of  mastication  being 
concluded,  that  of  digestion  had  commenced,  and  many  an 
honourable  gentleman,  I  observed,  seemed  to  prove  that  he 
was  born  only  to  digest.  At  the  end  of  a  long  corridor 
»  "  Sketches  by  Boz,"  p.  109  (1855). 


80  THE   MOTHER   OF   PARLIAMENTS 

which  opened  from  the  room  where  the  diners  were  assembled, 
there  stood  a  waiter,  whose  office  it  was  to  inform  any  interro- 
gator what  gentleman  was  speaking  below  stairs.  Nearly 
opposite  the  door  sat  two  English  county  members.  They 
had  disposed  of  a  bottle  each,  and  just  as  the  last  glass  was 
emptied,  one  of  them  called  out  to  the  annunciator  at  the  end 
of  the  passage  for  intelligence.  *  Mr.  Foster  on  his  legs,' 
was  the  formidable  answer.  '  Waiter,  bring  another  bottle  ! ' 
was  the  immediate  effect  of  this  information,  which  was 
followed  by  a  similar  injunction  from  every  table  in  the  room. 
I  perceived  that  Mr.  Bellamy  owed  great  obligations  to  Mr. 
Foster.  But  the  latter  did  not  limit  himself  to  a  second 
bottle  ;  again  and  again  the  same  question  was  asked,  and 
again  the  same  announcement  was  returned — '  Mr.  Foster 
upon  his  legs  I '  The  answer  seemed  to  fasten  men  in  in- 
separable adhesiveness  to  their  seats.  Thus  hours  went  by, 
when,  at  length,  '  Mr.  Plunkct  on  his  legs ! '  was  heard  from 
the  end  of  the  passage,  and  the  whole  convocation  of  com- 
potators  rose  together  and  returned  to  the  House."  ^ 

Alas !  Bellamy's  roaring  fire  is  long  extinguished,  his 
candles  have  burnt  down  to  their  sockets,  and  been  replaced 
by  electric  light.  The  comfortable  days  of  lengthy  dinners 
are  past  and  gone,  and  the  modern  member  has  barely  time 
to  snatch  a  hasty  meal  in  the  Commons'  dining-room  ere  he 
returns  to  the  bustle  and  confusion  of  the  House.  Things 
have  indeed  changed  since  the  leisurely  days  when  Bellamy 
could  adequately  cater  for  the  needs  of  Parliament.  His 
small  staff  and  humble  kitchen  would  have  but  little  chance 
of  satisfying  modern  requirements  in  an  age  when  over  a 
hundred  thousand  meals  are  served  to  members  and  their 
friends  in  the  course  of  a  single  session. 

•  Shell's  "  Sketches  of  the  Irish  Bar,"  vol.  ii.  p.  236. 


CHAPTER   V 
HIS    MAJESTY'S    SERVANTS 

PARLIAMENT  is  not  an  administrative  body.  Sum- 
moned by  the  Crown,  with  its  assent  it  passes  laws, 
gives  and  takes  away  rights,  authorises  and  directs  taxation 
and  expenditure  ;  but  in  executive  business  the  Crown  acts 
through  Ministers  who  are  not  appointed  by  Parh'ament, 
though  undoubtedly  responsible  to  it  for  their  conduct. 

Alfred  the  Great  called  together  Councils,  which  in  some 
ways  resembled  our  present  Cabinets  or  the  Privy  Council, 
to  consider  such  measures  as  were  afterwards  submitted  to 
the  Witenagemot.  In  William  the  Conqueror's  time  the 
Curia  Regis  was  the  Great  Council  which  he  consulted  on 
questions  of  State  policy.  Later  on,  in  Henry  L's  reign,  the 
King  formed  a  smaller  consultative  body  from  the  royal 
household,  whose  duty  it  was  to  deal  with  administrative 
details,  legislation  being  left  in  the  hands  of  the  National 
Council. 

In  Tudor  days  the  Sovereign  had  almost  dispensed  with 
Parliament  altogether — in  the  course  of  Queen  Elizabeth's 
lengthy  reign  it  was  only  summoned  thirteen  times — and  the 
country  was  governed  autocratically  by  the  monarch,  with 
the  aid  of  his  Privy  Council.  This  advisory  body  varied  in 
size  from  year  to  year.  In  Henry  VI I  L's  reign  it  consisted 
of  about  a  dozen  members  ;  later  on,  the  number  was  much 
increased.  In  time  the  Privy  Council  became  too  large  and 
cumbersome  an  assembly  to  act  together  without  friction,  and 
was  gradually  subdivided  into  various  committees,  to  each 
of  which  was  given  some  specific  legislative  function. 
G  8i 


82  THE   MOTHER   OF   PARLIAMENTS 

'  In  the  reign  of  Edward  VI.  one  of  these  smaller  bodies 
was  known  as  the  Committee  of  State,  and  from  this  has 
slowly  developed  the  Cabinet  to  which  we  are  accustomed 
to-day.  When  the  Great  Council  of  Peers  was  convened  at 
York  in  1640,  the  Committee  of  State  was  reproachfully 
referred  to  as  the  "  Cabinet  Council," — from  the  fact  that  its 
meetings  were  held  in  a  small  room  in  the  Royal  Palace, — 
and  afterwards  as  the  "Juncto."  It  consisted  of  the  Arch- 
bishop of  Canterbury,  the  Earl  of  Strafford,  and  a  few  other 
leading  men,  and  met  at  odd  times  to  discuss  important 
intelligence,  the  Privy  Council  only  meeting  when  specially 
summoned. 

James  I.  acquired  the  habit  of  entrusting  his  confidence  to 
a  few  advisers,  and  his  successors  followed  suit.  The  inner 
council,  or  cabal,  thus  originated,  was  the  cause  of  much 
parliamentary  jealousy  and  popular  suspicion.  After  the  fall 
of  Clarendon  in  1677,  and  of  Danby  twelve  years  later, 
Charles  II.  promised,  in  accordance  with  the  general  desire, 
to  be  governed  by  the  Privy  Council,  and  to  have  no  secrets 
from  that  body.  It  soon  became  evident,  however,  that  the 
King  had  no  intention  of  keeping  his  promise,  and  the 
Remonstrance  of  1682  complained  that  great  affairs  of  State 
were  still  managed  "  in  Cabinet  Councils,  by  men  unknown, 
and  not  publicly  trusted." 

In  Stuart  days  the  Commons  had  grown  in  strength  from 
year  to  year,  and  the  Privy  Council  had  weakened  propor- 
tionately, though  it  had  increased  in  size.  Besides  being  so 
unwieldy  as  to  be  impracticable  for  administrative  purposes, 
it  was  largely  composed  of  men  who  were  not  in  any  way 
fitted  for  the  post  of  responsible  advisers.  Naunton,  writing 
of  Elizabeth's  day,  observed  that  "  there  were  of  the  Queen's 
Councell  that  were  not  in  the  Catalogue  of  Saints."^  And 
much  the  same  criticism  would  apply  to  the  Privy  Councillors 
of  Stuart  times.  The  inner  Cabinet,  therefore,  gradually 
assumed  all  the  more  important  functions  of  the  Legislature, 
and  eventually  became  the  ruling  power  in  the  State. 
'  "  Fragmenta  Regalia,"  p.  23. 


HIS   MAJESTY'S   SERVANTS  83 

In  the  time  of  Charles  II.  the  Ministry  was  not  a  united 
body,  but  was  composed  of  men  of  different  political  opinions, 
each  of  whom  held  his  office  at  the  King's  pleasure.  The 
Cabinet  long  remained,  therefore,  in  a  disorganised  and 
subordinate  condition,  largely  dependent  upon  the  royal  will. 
Under  the  Tudors  and  Stuarts,  Ministers  were  the  masters  or 
servants  of  the  Crown,  according  as  the  Sovereign  was  a  weak 
or  a  strong  one.  They  did  not  necessarily  sit  in  Parliament, 
nor  did  they  act  together  in  response  to  the  views  of  a 
parliamentary  majority.  The  Cabinet  itself  consisted  of  an 
inner  group  of  responsible  advisers  and  an  outer  circle  of 
members  with  whom  they  often  differed  fundamentally. 
There  was  no  need  for  unanimity  of  political  thought  in  the 
Cabinet  of  those  days,  so  long  as  its  members  were  unanimous 
in  their  subservience  to  the  King. 

After  the  Revolution  of  16S8,  however,  the  powers  of 
the  Crown  were  limited  and  those  of  Parliament  extended. 
Ministers  now  customarily  sat  in  Parliament,  and  gradually 
acquired  unanimity  of  thought  and  purpose,  working  together 
with  common  responsibility  and  for  common  interests.^  The 
Cabinet  thus  became  what  Walter  Bagehot  calls  a  "  combining 
committee — a  hyphen  which  joins,  a  buckle  which  fastens, 
the  legislative  to  the  executive  part  of  the  State" — and 
remained  an  essentially  deliberative  assembly,  as  opposed 
to  the  Privy  Council,  or  administrative  body. 

William  III.  had  begun  by  convening  mixed  Cabinets  of 
Whigs  and  Tories,  but  in  1693  he  determined  to  appoint 
Ministers  all  of  one  party,  and  in  two  years  his  Cabinet  was 
entirely  composed  of  Whigs.  This  example  was  followed  by 
his  successor,  though  unwillingly,  and  the  Cabinet  system,  as 
we  understand  it  to-day,  may  be  said  to  date  from  the 
moment  when  Godolphin  forced  Queen  Anne  to  accept 
Sunderland,  and,  later,  to  remove  Harley,  in  accordance  with 
the  views  expressed  by  the  country  at  elections. 

'  It  is  not  absolutely  necessary  for  a  Cabinet  Minister  to  sit  in  either 
House.  Gladstone  was  a  Secretary  of  State  from  December  1845,  to 
July,  1846,  without  a  seat  in  Parliament. 


84  THE   MOTHER  OF   PARLIAMENTS 

By  this  time  Parliament  had  learnt  to  tolerate  the  idea  of 
a  Cabinet,  and  the  word  itself  appears  for  the  first  time 
officially  in  the  Lords'  Address  to  the  Queen  in  171 1.  In 
that  year  a  lengthy  debate  took  place  on  the  meaning  of  the 
words  "Cabinet  Council,"  several  peers  preferring  the  term 
"  Ministers."  Among  the  latter  was  the  Earl  of  Peterborough, 
who  declared  that  sometimes  there  was  no  Minister  at  all  in 
the  Cabinet  Council.  He  seems  to  have  regarded  the 
members  of  the  Privy  Council  and  of  the  Cabinet  with  equal 
contempt.  The  Privy  Councillors,  he  said,  "were  such  as 
were  thought  to  know  everything  and  knew  nothing,  and 
the  Cabinet  Councillors  those  who  thought  that  nobody 
knew  anything  but  themselves." 

When  Walpole  was  Prime  Minister,  the  country  was 
governed  by  three  bodies — the  Great  Council,  somewhat 
similar  to  the  modern  Privy  Council ;  the  Committee  of 
Council,  a  smaller  assembly  which  met  at  the  Cockpit  in 
Whitehall,  and  seems  to  have  concerned  itself  chiefly  with 
foreign  affairs ;  and  the  Cabinet. 

The  members  of  the  Cabinet  varied  in  number  from  eight 
to  fourteen,  and  included  the  Great  Officers  of  the  Royal 
Household.  In  April,  1740,  for  instance,  it  consisted  of  the 
Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  the  Lord  Chancellor,  the  Lord 
President  of  the  Council,  the  Lord  Privy  Seal,  the  Lord 
Steward,  the  Lord  Chamberlain,  the  Master  of  the  Horse, 
the  Lord  Lieutenant  of  Ireland,  two  Secretaries  of  State, 
the  Groom  of  the  Stole,  the  First  Minister  for  Scotland,  the 
Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer,  the  First  Commissioner  of  the 
Admiralty,  and  the  Master  of  the  Ordnance.  Besides  these, 
the  Duke  of  Bolton  was  also  included,  for  the  somewhat 
inadequate  reason  that  "  he  had  been  of  it  seven  years  ago."  ^ 
As  such  an  immense  body  must  have  been  quite  unmanage- 
able from  a  business  point  of  view,  there  also  existed  an 
interior  council,  consisting  of  Walpole,  the  Lord  Chancellor, 
and  the  two  Secretaries  of  State,  who  consulted  together, 
in  the  first  instance,  on  the  more  confidential  points,  and 
*  Hervey's  "Memoirs  of  George  II.,"  vol.  ii.  p.  551. 


HIS   MAJESTY'S   SERVANTS  85 

reported  the  result  of  their  deliberations  to  the  rest  of  the 
Cabinet. 

The  size  and  composition  of  a  Cabinet  is  a  question  which 
has  always  been  left  entirely  to  the  discretion  of  the  Prime 
Minister.  In  1770  and  1783,  when  Lord  North  and  Pitt  were 
Premiers,  the  number  was  reduced  to  seven.  Later  on,  this 
was  increased  ;  but  Lord  Wellesley,  in  1812,  expressed  his 
conviction  that  thirteen  was  an  inconveniently  large  number, 
and  Sir  Robert  Peel,  some  twenty  years  later,  declared  that 
the  Executive  Government  would  be  infinitely  better  con- 
ducted by  a  Cabinet  composed  of  only  nine  members. 

Among  His  Majesty's  advisers  in  Georgian  days,  and 
earlier,  peers  usually  preponderated.  The  younger  Pitt  was 
the  only  Commoner  in  his  first  Cabinet.  Nowadays  both 
Houses  are  suitably  represented. 

There  is  no  definite  rule  laid  down  as  to  which  posts  in 
the  Administration  carry  with  them  a  seat  in  the  Cabinet ; 
but  the  First  Lord  of  the  Treasury,  the  Chancellor  of  the 
Exchequer,  the  First  Lord  of  the  Admiralty,  the  Lord  Presi- 
dent of  the  Council,  the  Lord  Privy  Seal,  and  the  Lord 
Chancellor  are  invariably  included.  Statesmen  who  hold 
no  office  at  all,  as  we  have  seen  in  the  case  of  the  Duke  of 
Bolton,  have  occasionally  been  given  a  seat.  Hyde,  after- 
wards Lord  Clarendon,  sat  in  Charles  I.'s  Cabinet  without 
office  ;  and,  later  on,  Lord  Fitzwilliam,  the  Duke  of  Wellington, 
and  Lord  John  Russell  were  each  accorded  a  similar  privilege. 
Lord  Mansfield,  on  his  elevation  to  the  seat  of  the  Lord  Chief 
Justice,  in  1756,  became  a  member  of  the  Cabinet,  and  did 
not  cease  to  take  part  in  the  discussions  until  1765.  The 
precedent  he  thus  created  was  afterwards  cited  in  the  case 
of  Lord  Ellenborough,  another  Lord  Chief  Justice,  who  was 
admitted  to  the  Cabinet  of  "All  the  Talents"  in  1806.     By 

I  this  time,  however,  the  inclusion  of  any  but  the  actual  holders 
of  parliamentary  offices  was  considered  unusual,  and  it  has 
never  been  repeated. 
Cabinet  meetings  in  Charles  II.'s  time  were  first  of  all 
held  twice  a  week,  and  then  on  Sunday  evenings.     It  was 


86  THE   MOTHER   OF   PARLIAMENTS 

long  customary  for  the  Sovereign  to  be  present,  and  Queen 
Anne  presided  regularly  over  these  Sunday  gatherings. 
Indeed,  the  absence  of  the  King  from  Cabinet  meetings 
did  not  occur  until  the  time  of  George  I.,  and  only  arose 
from  that  monarch's  inability  to  speak  English.  Since  his 
day,  however,  no  Sovereign  has  thought  it  necessary,  or  even 
politic,  to  attend. 

Besides  the  regular  official  meetings  of  the  Cabinet, 
informal  gatherings  of  Ministers  were  occasionally  convened. 
Walpole  used  often  to  invite  a  few  colleagues  to  dinner  to 
discuss  the  affairs  of  the  nation,  and  in  the  Aberdeen  Govern- 
ment a  Cabinet  dinner  was  held  weekly.^  After  the  table- 
cloth had  been  removed,  and  the  port  began  to  circulate, 
measures  of  State  were  agitated  and  discussed,  and  questions 
of  policy  decided  upon.  Whether  Ministers  were  always 
in  a  condition  fit  for  the  consideration  of  such  grave  topics 
is  a  matter  of  doubt.  Lord  Chancellor  Thurlow  sometimes 
refused  to  take  part  in  these  post-prandial  discussions.  "  He 
has  even  more  than  once  left  his  colleagues  to  deliberate," 
says  Wraxall,  "whilst  he  sullenly  stretched  himself  along  the 
chair,  and  fell,  or  appeared  to  fall,  fast  asleep."  ^ 

The  Cabinet  no  longer  meets  on  Sundays,  and  the  practice 
of  holding  weekly  dinners  has  been  given  up.  It  has  no 
regular  times  of  assembling,  but  can  be  summoned  at  any 
moment  when  the  Prime  Minister  wishes  to  consult  his 
colleagues.  It  is  not  necessary  for  all  the  members  of  the 
Cabinet  to  be  present,  as  no  quorum  is  needed  to  validate 
the  proceedings,  nor  is  there  any  rule  laid  down  as  to  the 
length  of  a  Cabinet  meeting,  which  may  last  from  a  brief 
half-hour  to  as  much  as  half  a  day.^ 

*  "  Our  immemorial  Cabinet  Dinner  was  at  Lord  Lonsdale's,"  writes 
Lord  Malmesbury,  on  March  17,  1852.  "Each  of  us  gives  one  on  a 
Wednesday." — "  Memoirs  of  an  Ex-Minister,"  vol.  i.  p.  321. 

^  Wraxall's  "  Memoirs,"  vol.  i.  p.  527. 

^  "  Granville  dined  at  the  Lord  Chancellor's  yesterday,"  wrote  Lady 
Granville  to  the  Duke  of  Devonshire,  on  November  8,  1830,  when  the 
question  of  the  postponement  of  the  King's  visit  to  the  city  was  filling 
the  minds  of  Ministers.     "  The  Chancellor  came  in  after  they  were  all 


HIS   MAJESTY'S   SERVANTS  ^7 

The  chief  point  with  regard  to  Cabinet  meetings  is  their 
absolute  secrecy.  No  minutes  are  kept,  no  secretary  or  clerk 
is  present,  and  only  in  exceptional  circumstances  is  some 
private  record  made  of  any  matter  that  may  have  been 
discussed.  The  meetings  are  usually  held  at  No.  10,  Downing 
Street,  the  official  residence  of  the  Prime  Minister,  or  occa- 
sionally at  the  Foreign  Office,  a  practice  instituted  by  Lord 
Salisbury  when  he  was  Foreign  Secretary,  his  Cabinet  being 
so  large  that  the  room  in  Downing  Street  could  barely 
contain  it. 

In  George  II.'s  time,  No.  10,  Downing  Street — called  after 
Sir  George  Downing,  a  statesman  of  Charles  II.'s  day,  whom 
Pepys  styles  "a  niggardly  fellow" — belonged  to  the  Crown, 
and  was  the  town  residence  of  Bothmar,  the  Hanoverian 
Minister.  On  the  latter's  death,  King  George  offered  the 
house  to  Walpole  as  a  gift.  The  Prime  Minister  declined  it, 
however,  and  suggested  that  it  should  henceforward  accompany 
the  offices  of  the  First  Lord  of  the  Treasury  and  the  Chancellor 
of  the  Exchequer.  Externally  the  Prime  Minister's  house  is 
not  a  very  imposing  structure,  but  the  traditions  attached  to 
it  as  the  official  residence  of  so  many  eminent  Englishmen 
enchance  its  value  in  the  eyes  of  its  occupants  and  of  the  public. 

Here,  then,  the  Cabinet  assembles  to  discuss  the  problems 
of  Empire,  whose  solution  at  times  of  stress  the  country  awaits 
with  such  breathless  interest.  Here  the  Prime  Minister  pre- 
sides over  that  assembly  which,  however  internally  discordant, 
must  ever  present  an  harmonious  and  united  front  to  the  public. 
The  decisions  arrived  at  by  "His  Majesty's  Servants" — no 
longer  known  as  the  "  Lords  of  the  Cabinet  Council,"  as  in 
olden  times — must  always  be  presumably  unanimous.  Each 
Minister  is  held  responsible  for  the  opinions  of  the  Cabinet  as  a 
whole.  His  only  escape  from  such  responsibility  lies  in  resig- 
nation, in  either  sense  of  that  word.  The  defending  and  sup- 
porting in  public  of  what  they  are  really  opposed  to  in  private, 

seated  from  a  Cabinet  that  had  lasted  five  hours,  returned  to  be  at  it 
again  till  two,  and  the  result  you  see  in  the  papers." — Lady  Granville's 
"  Letters,"  vol.  ii.  p.  63. 


88  THE   MOTHER   OF   PARLIAMENTS 

is  the  common  practice  of  Ministers.  It  is  thought  that  one 
man's  scruples  should  yield  to  the  judgment  of  the  many,  and 
"minorities  must  suffer"  that  Governments  may  be  carried 
on  and  Ministries  remain  undivided.^  There  is  a  well-known 
story  of  Lord  Melbourne's  Ministry  which  illustrates  this 
point.  The  Government  had  proposed  to  put  an  eight- 
shilling  duty  on  corn.  Melbourne,  who  was  strongly  opposed 
to  the  tax,  found  himself  out-voted  and  overruled  by  the 
other  members  of  the  Cabinet.  At  the  end  of  the  meeting  he 
put  his  back  against  the  door.  "  Now,  is  it  to  lower  the  price 
of  corn,  or  isn't  it  ? "  he  asked.  "  It  doesn't  much  matter 
what  we  say,  but  mind,  we  must  all  say  the  same  !  "  In  i860, 
again,  Lord  Palmerston  as  Prime  Minister  was  in  favour  of 
the  House  of  Lords  throwing  out  the  Paper  Duties  Bill,  which 
was  the  measure  of  his  own  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer. 

It  is  not  perhaps  easy  to  imagine  a  modern  Premier  being 
placed  in  a  situation  similar  to  that  of  cither  Lord  Melbourne 
or  Lord  Palmerston.  He  must  necessarily,  to  a  certain  extent, 
have  the  whip  hand  of  the  Cabinet.  For  if  several  of  his 
colleagues  disagree  with  him  on  a  question  of  principle,  and 
resign,  he  can  generally  appoint  others  ;  whereas,  if  he  resigns* 
the  whole  Ministry  crumbles  and  falls  to  pieces. 

The  Prime  Minister  nowadays  has  indeed  acquired  a 
position  which  is  almost  that  of  a  dictator.  In  many  ways 
his  power  is  absolute  and  his  will  autocratic.  More  especially 
is  this  true  as  regards  his  dealings  with  the  Crown.  In  olden 
days  he  was  the  servant  and  creature  of  the  sovereign.  He 
had  no  voice  in  the  selection  of  his  colleagues ;  he  acted 
merely  as  His  Majesty's  chief  adviser,  and,  as  such,  was  liable 
to  instant  dismissal.  When  Pelham  resigned  in  1746,  because 
he  could  no  longer  agree  with  the  King,  he  was  acting  in  a 
fashion  that  was  then  unprecedented.  Before  that  time,  a 
Prime  Minister  whose  views  did  not  coincide  with  those  of 
his  sovereign,  was  summarily  dismissed.  Many  kings  had, 
indeed,  been  in  the  habit  of  themselves  undertaking  the  duties 

^  See  Speaker  Onslow's  "Essay  on  Opposition,"  "  Hist,  MSS.  Com- 
mission" (1895),  App.  ix.  p.  460. 


HIS   MAJESTY'S   SERVANTS  89 

of  Prime  Minister — Charles  II.  delighted  in  referring  to 
himself  as  his  own  Premier  Ministre,  though  he  was  far  too 
indolent  to  perform  the  work  of  that  official — and  merely 
looked  upon  their  chief  adviser  as  a  convenient  channel  of 
communication  between  themselves  and  Parliament. 

It  was  not  until  the  eighteenth  century  that  a  Premier  of 
the  modern  type  came  into  existence.  With  the  develop- 
ment of  the  party  system,  the  gradual  growth  of  the  Cabinet's 
prestige,  and  the  consequent  weakening  of  the  sovereign's  pre- 
rogatives, the  Prime  Minister  ceased  to  be  the  choice  of  the 
Crown,  and  became  the  nominee  of  the  nation.  As  the  leader 
of  the  party  in  office,  he  acquired  the  unquestioned  right  of 
selecting  his  own  Ministers.  To-day,  though  the  King  still 
nominally  chooses  his  Prime  Minister,  little  individual  freedom 
is  left  to  the  sovereign,  who  is  guided  in  his  choice  by  the 
advice  of  the  outgoing  Premier  and  his  interpretation  of  the 
wishes  of  the  country. 

For  a  very  long  time  the  very  name  of  Prime  Minister  stank 
in  the  nostrils  of  the  public  and  of  Parliament.  The  word 
"Premier"  was  used  in  1746/  but  as  late  as  1761  we  find 
George  Grenville  in  a  debate  in  the  Commons  declaring 
"  Prime  Minister"  to  be  an  odious  title.  The  holder  of  it  long 
occupied  an  anomalous  position.  Legally  and  constitutionally 
he  had  no  superiority  over  any  other  Privy  Councillor. 
Eight  members  of  the  Cabinet  took  precedence  of  him,  by 
virtue  of  office — a  fact  which  naturally  resulted  in  situations 
puzzling  to  the  lay  mind — the  exact  rank  of  the  Prime 
Minister  being  apparently  impossible  to  define.  When  Lord 
Palmerston  visited  Scotland  in  1863,  the  commander  of  the 
naval  guardship  was  very  anxious  to  receive  that  distinguished 
statesman  with  all  the  ceremony  befitting  his  exalted  position. 
On  the  subject  of  salutes  due  to  a  Prime  Minister  the  naval 
code-book  unfortunately  maintained  an  impenetrable  silence, 
and  gave  the  officer  no  information  as  to  how  he  should  act. 
He  eventually  solved  the  difficulty  in  a  thoroughly  tactful 
manner  by  giving  Palmerston  the  salute  of  nineteen  guns 
*  Coxe's  "  Pelhatn  Administration,"  vol.  i.  p.  486. 


90  THE  MOTHER   OF   PARLIAMENTS 

which  were  due  to  him  as  Lord  Warden  of  the  Cinq  Ports. ^ 
Mr.  Gladstone,  who  was  ever  most  punctilious  in  matters  of 
etiquette,  always  resolutely  declined  to  leave  a  room  in  front 
of  any  person  of  higher  social  rank,  and  many  a  youthful 
peer  vainly  endeavoured  to  induce  the  aged  Prime  Minister 
to  precede  him. 

The  Prime  Minister  continued  to  occupy  an  ambiguous 
position  until  quite  recently.  It  was  not,  indeed,  until  the 
close  of  Mr.  Balfour's  Premiership  that  his  proper  precedence 
was  recognised.  Matters  were  simplified,  however,  when  he 
held  some  ministerial  office,  as  First  Lord  of  the  Treasury, 
Lord  President  of  the  Council,  or  Foreign  Secretary,  whereby 
he  became  entitled  to  an  adequate  salary  and  an  assured,  if 
inadequate,  precedence. 

Sir  Robert  Walpole,  who  held  the  Premiership  for  twenty- 
one  years — though  not  consecutively^ — was  the  first  Prime 
Minister  in  the  modern  sense  of  the  word,  the  first  to  sit  in 
the  Commons,  and  the  first  to  resign  because  of  an  adverse 
vote  of  Parliament. 

Walpole  was  in  many  ways  a  model  Premier.  Though  not, 
indeed,  as  incorruptible  as  Harley,  he  yet  possessed  many 
of  the  qualities  which  contributed  to  that  statesman's  success.^ 
It  was  not  genius,  it  was  not  eloquence,  it  was  not  statesman- 
ship that  gave  Harley  his  astounding  power  in  Parliament,  as 

^  Ashley's  "  Life  of  Palmerston,"  vol.  ii.  p.  233. 

2  Walpole  was  First  Lord  of  the  Treasury  for  more  than  twenty-one 
years,  but  Macaulay  says  that  he  cannot  be  called  Prime  Minister  until 
some  time  after  he  had  been  First  Lord. — "  Miscellaneous  Writings," 

P-  359- 

^  Walpole  distributed  government  patronage  freely  among  the 
members  of  his  own  family.  His  relations  held  offices  worth  nearly 
;^i 5,000  a  year,  and,  two  years  after  he  relinquished  office,  his  own 
places  brought  him  in  an  annual  income  of  ;^2ooo.  He  made  his  eldest 
son  Auditor  of  the  Exchequer,  and  his  second  son  Clerk  of  the  Pells. 
He  gave  his  son  Horace  two  posts,  as  Clerk  of  the  Estreats  and  Comp- 
troller of  the  Pipe,  when  the  boy  was  still  an  infant.  Later  on  he  gave 
him  a  position  in  the  Customs,  and  lastly  made  him  Usher  of  the 
Exchequer,  an  office  worth  about  ^1000  a  year.  See  "Memoirs  of  Sir 
Robert  Walpole,"  vol.  i.  p.  730  ;  Cunningham's  "  Letters  of  Horace 
Walpole,"  vol.  i.  pp.  Ixxxiv.  and  314. 


HIS   MAJESTY'S   SERVANTS  91 

Forster  has  remarked  ;  it  was  "  House  of  Commons  tact."  Sir 
Robert  Peel,  Lord  John  Russell,  and  Disraeli  each  understood 
that  art  of  "  managing  Parliament,"  which  is  probably  of  far 
greater  value  to  a  Prime  Minister  than  either  virtue  or  elo- 
quence. Lord  Rockingham,  George  Grenville,  and  Lord 
Bute — the  last  uttering  his  words  with  hesitation  and  at 
long  intervals,  causing  Charles  Townshend  to  liken  them 
to  "  minute-guns  " — each  lacked  that  power  of  oratory  for 
which  another  Premier,  Lord  Derby,  the  "  Rupert  of  debate," 
was  more  famous  than  for  any  intellectual  ability."  Lord 
Castlereagh  had  a  great  influence  with  his  party,  and  was 
a  most  successful  leader  of  the  House  of  Commons.  Yet 
he  was  a  shocking  speaker,  tiresome,  involved,  and  obscure.^ 
On  one  occasion  he  harangued  the  House  for  an  hour,  during 
no  single  moment  of  which  could  any  of  his  hearers  make 
out  what  on  earth  he  was  driving  at.  "  So  much,  Mr. 
Speaker,  for  the  law  of  nations ! "  he  finally  exclaimed,  as 
he  prepared  to  turn  to  other  matters. 

Parliament  will,  indeed,  put  up  with  a  great  deal  from  a 
Minister  whose  honesty  is  unquestioned,  and  who  has  sufficient 
common-sense  not  to  blunder  at  a  moment  of  crisis.  Nowa- 
days, however,  no  man  who  was  utterly  lacking  in  ordinary 
power  of  speaking  would  be  given  a  place  on  the  front  bench. 
A  talent  for  debate  may  not  necessarily  be  a  gauge  of  a 
man's  capacity  as  a  Minister,  but  only  in  debate  can  he  show 
his  powers.  His  success  in  Parliament  is  a  test  of  intellect,  for 
there,  at  any  rate,  he  cannot  conceal  departmental  ignorance. 
But  it  requires  judgment,  ability,  and  tact  to  become  a 
leader.  Charm  and  personal  magnetism  are  the  qualities 
that  endear  a  man  to  his  followers.  A  kindly  word,  a  smile, 
or  a  glance  of  recognition  will  often  win  the  affection  of  a 

1  "  My  father  would  be  a  very  able  man — if  he  knew  anything," 
Lord  Stanley  is  supposed  to  have  said  of  him.  Hutton's  "Studies," 
p.  48. 

2  "  He  evidently  attempts  to  imitate  Mr.  Pitt  in  his  manner  and 
rhetorick;  but  the  clumsy  attempts  of  a  heavy  domestic  fowl  to  take 
wing  are  very  different  from  the  vivid  and  lofty  soaring  of  the  lark." 
Courtney's  "  Characteristics,"  p.  42. 


92  THE   MOTHER  OF   PARLIAMENTS 

supporter  more  surely  than  the  most  eloquent  speech,  and  it 
was  in  this  respect  that  Lord  John  Russell,  Gladstone,  and 
Lord  Salisbury,  either  from  shortness  of  sight  or  absence  of 
mind,  failed.  The  same  qualities  which  young  Grattan  con- 
sidered necessary  for  a  successful  leader  of  Opposition  may 
also  prove  invaluable  to  a  Prime  Minister.  "He  must  be 
affable  in  manner,  generous  in  disposition,  have  a  ready  hand, 
an  open  house,  and  a  full  purse.  He  must  have  a  good  cook 
for  the  English  members,  fine  words  and  fair  promises  for  the 
Irish,  and  sober  calculations  for  the  Scotch."  ^  He  must, 
indeed,  be  a  man  who  breeds  confidence  and  inspires  affection 
among  his  subordinates. 

Men  in  the  House  of  Commons,  as  Bolingbroke  said, 
"  grow,  like  hounds,  fond  of  the  man  who  shows  them  sport, 
and  by  whose  halloos  they  are  used  to  be  encouraged."  If, 
in  addition,  the  Prime  Minister  possesses  singleness  of  pur- 
pose and  supreme  self-confidence,  his  power  in  Parliament  is 
supreme.  The  "  Great  Commoner  "  owed  his  political  success 
as  much  to  his  courage  and  assurance  as  to  his  splendid  gifts 
as  an  orator.  "  I  know  that  I  can  save  the  country,"  he  once 
observed  to  the  Duke  of  Devonshire,  "  and  I  know  that  no 
other  man  can !  "  ^  The  Duke  of  Cumberland,  a  political 
adversary,  described  him  very  justly  when  he  said  that  he  was 
"  that  rare  thing — a  man  !  "  His  position  in  the  House  of 
Commons  was  in  many  ways  unique.  His  very  presence 
seemed  to  instil  fear  into  the  hearts  of  his  opponents,  and 
promote  confidence  in  those  of  his  supporters.  A  member 
named  Moreton,  Chief  Justice  of  Chester,  in  a  speech  in  the 
Lower  House,  once  made  some  allusion  to  "  King,  Lords,  and 
Commons,  or,  as  that  Right  Honourable  Member  " — looking 
across  at  Pitt — "  would  call  them.  Commons,  Lords,  and 
King ! "  The  Prime  Minister  rose  at  once  in  that  slow 
dignified  manner  which  always  commanded  silence,  and, 
fixing  the  speaker  with  a  cold  and  terrifying  gaze,  asked  the 
Clerk  of  the  House  to  make  a  note  of  Moreton's  words.     "  I 

'  Grattan's  "  Life  and  Times,"  vol.  v.  p.  417. 

2  Hayward's  "Biographical  Essays/'  vol.  ii.  p.  39. 


CHATHAM 

FROM    THE    I'AINTING    BV    WII.I.IAM    HOARE,    R.A.,    IX    THE    NATIdNAI.    I'OKTNAII    GALLERY 


HIS   MAJESTY'S   SERVANTS  93 

have  heard  frequently  in  this  house  doctrines  that  have  sur- 
prised me,"  he  said  ;  "  but  now  my  blood  runs  cold  !  "  Moreton, 
in  some  alarm,  hastened  to  apologise  for  his  ill-chosen  words, 
saying  that  he  had  intended  nothing  offensive.  "  King,  Lords, 
and  Commons ;  Lords,  King,  and  Commons ;  Commons, 
Lords,  and  King — tria  juncta  in  imo !  Indeed,  I  meant 
nothing  ! "  he  explained.  Pitt  gravely  accepted  this  apology, 
but  took  the  opportunity  of  giving  the  trembling  Moreton 
some  very  sound  advice.  "  Whenever  that  honourable  gentle- 
man means  nothing,"  he  said,  in  his  sternest  and  most  frigid 
tones,  "  I  strongly  recommend  him  to  say  nothing  !" 

The  terror  he  inspired  among  his  opponents  was  shown 
on  another  occasion  when  he  replied  to  an  attack  of  Murray, 
the  Solicitor-General,  afterwards  Lord  Mansfield.  "  I  must 
now  address  a  few  words  to  Mr.  Solicitor,"  said  Pitt ;  "  they 
shall  be  few,  but  they  shall  be  daggers  !  "  Murray  at  once 
became  much  agitated.  "  Judge  Festus  trembles,"  continued 
Pitt  relentlessly,  pointing  his  finger  on  him.  "  He  shall  hear 
me  some  other  day."  He  sat  down,  Murray  made  no  reply, 
and  a  languid  debate  showed  the  paralysis  of  the  House.^ 

It  was  not  only  in  Parliament  that  Pitt's  power  made 
itself  felt,  or  that  his  words  were  received  with  a  kind  of 
reverential  awe  bordering  on  terror.  Government  officials 
knew  well  that  he  was  not  a  man  to  be  trifled  with,  or,  if  they 
did  not  know  it,  he  soon  found  occasion  to  bring  the  fact  to 
their  notice.  Once,  when  he  had  sent  a  message  to  the 
Admiralty  saying  that  the  Channel  Fleet  was  to  be  got 
ready  to  sail  on  the  following  Tuesday,  the  Board  of 
Admiralty  respectfully  replied  that  such  a  thing  was  an 
impossibility  ;  the  time  was  too  short.  The  Prime  Minister 
drily  rejoined  that  in  that  case  he  would  recommend  the 
King  to  name  a  new  Board  of  Admiralty.  Needless  to  say, 
the  Channel  Fleet  sailed  on  Tuesday.^ 

Pitt,  indeed,  possessed  all  the  attributes  of  a  successful 
Prime   Minister.      He   was    himself   infused   with   a   fervid 

'   Butler's  "  Reminiscences,"  pp.  154-157. 
2  Russell's  "  Recollections,"  p.  263. 


94  THE   MOTHER   OF   PARLIAMENTS 

enthusiasm  which  he  could  transmit  into  the  hearts  of  all 
who  shared  his  confidences.  His  courage  was  infectious. 
No  man,  said  Colonel  Barre,  could  come  out  of  the  Minister's 
private  room  without  feeling  himself  braver  than  when  he 
entered.  He  was  gifted  with  a  serene  composure,  a  perfect 
self-possession,  and  understood  the  House  of  Commons  as 
well  as  did  Disraeli  after  him,  and  as  well  as  Lord  Salisbury 
understood  the  Lords. 

Both  these  two  last  statesmen  possessed  that  polished 
style,  dry  humour  and  sarcasm  which  are  beloved  of  parlia- 
mentary audiences.  Disraeli  was  the  more  ornamental 
speaker  of  the  two,  but  seldom  wasted  time  in  rhetoric,  and, 
like  Lord  North,  never  weakened  his  argument  by  superfluous 
declamation.  One  of  the  secrets  of  his  success  was  that  he 
knew  when  to  keep  silent — knowledge  that  is  of  infinite 
importance  to  a  Prime  Minister.  Gladstone — great  as  a 
Premier,  and  still  greater  as  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer — 
could  not  always  stay  his  speech.  His  earnestness  and 
enthusiasm  carried  him  away,  and  he  thereby  often  dissipated 
in  debate  those  powers  which  his  rival  was  reserving  for  great 
occasions.  Lord  Salisbury  adopted  a  studiously  common-place 
tone  in  the  House ;  he  did  not  orate,  he  talked  confidentially 
And  Parliament  has  always  preferred  this  quiet  fashion  of 
speaking,  to  what  Dizzy  once  called  the  "  somewhat  sancti- 
monious eloquence"  of  Gladstone.  Lord  Palmerston's  jaunty 
manner  was  far  more  popular  than  the  exuberant  eloquence 
of  greater  orators.  People  said  that  they  preferred  his  "  ha  ! 
ha !  "  style  to  the  wit  of  Canning  or  the  gravity  of  Peel. 

The  Premiership  is  not  a  bed  of  roses,  and  it  requires  the 
phlegm  of  a  Lord  North  to  sleep  there  at  all.  It  is,  no  doubt, 
the  pinnacle  of  political  ambition,  but  from  that  giddy  height 
many  a  statesman  has  looked  down  with  envy,  like  St.  Simon 
on  his  column,  at  the  groundlings  who  walk  securely  beneath 
his  feet.  Elevation  brings  with  it  many  disadvantages.  The 
searchlight  of  public  opinion  beats  relentlessly  upon  a  Prime 
Minister  ;  even  his  private  life  is  open  to  criticism.  Enemies 
lay  snares  for  him  on  every  side ;  friends  and  political  allies 


HIS   MAJESTY'S   SERVANTS  95 

have  to  be  treated  with  tact  and  tenderness  ;  his  labours 
never  cease,  day  or  night.^  It  is  his  duty,  as  Gladstone  said, 
"  to  stand  like  a  wall  of  adamant  between  the  people  and  the 
sovereign,"  and  the  burden  of  an  Empire  hangs  heavy  upon 
his  shoulders.  From  the  very  moment  of  a  Prime  Minister's 
appointment  his  responsibilities  commence.  Entrusted  by 
the  sovereign  with  the  delicate  duty  of  forming  a  Ministry, 
he  is  at  once  faced  with  a  task  of  exceptional  difficulty. 
Whom  shall  he  choose  >  This  problem  awaits  his  instant 
solution.  Luckily,  as  Bagehot  says,  the  position  of  most 
men  in  Parliament  forbids  their  being  invited  to  the  Cabinet, 
while  that  of  a  few  men  ensures  their  being  invited.^  Between 
the  compulsory  list,  whom  he  must  take,  and  the  impossible 
list,  whom  he  cannot  take,  a  Prime  Minister's  independent 
choice  is  not  very  large ;  it  extends  rather  to  the  division  of 
the  Cabinet  offices  than  to  the  choice  of  Cabinet  Ministers. 

This  distribution  of  places  is,  however,  an  invidious  duty ; 
there  are  so  many  reasons  governing  a  Premier's  choice  of  his 
colleagues.  Valuable  services  to  the  party  have  to  be 
rewarded  ;  the  claims  of  men  who  have  held  Cabinet  rank  in 

*  Among  the  unpublished  manuscripts  at  Welbeck  Abbey  are  some 
private  notes  made  by  the  Duke  of  Portland,  who  was  Prime  Minister  in 
1783,  suggesting  methods  of  treatment  suitable  for  various  political  allies 
at  the  time  of  the  Coalition  Ministry.  The  following  extracts  are  of 
interest : — 

"  Lord  Salisbury.     Irish  jobs. 

Lord  Thanet.     Personal  attention. 

Lord  Cornwallis.  Should  be  spoken  to  :  has  two  members  in  the 
House  of  Commons. 

Lord  Clarendon.     Anything  for  himself  or  Lord  Hyde. 

Lord  Wentworth.     Wants  something.     He  voted  against. 

Duke  of  Argyle.     Great  attention.     Scotch  jobs. 

Gen.  Luttral.  To  be  sent  for  next  session.  Lord  Temple  should  not 
be  allowed  all  the  merit  of  the  job  that  we  done  for  him  lately. 

Gen.  Vaughan.     Quebec,  or  a  Command  anywhere. 

Lord  Westcote.     Distant  hopes  of  a  Peerage. 

Mr.  Gibbon.  Will  vacate  his  seat  for  an  employment  out  of  Parlia- 
ment :  very  much  wished  by  Lord  Loughborough." 

(N.B. — This  Gibbon  is  the  historian.) 

2  "  Fortnightly  Review,"  No.  i,  p.  10. 


96  THE   MOTHER   OF   PARLIAMENTS 

former  Governments  cannot  be  disregarded ;  the  wishes  of 
the  Sovereign  must  be  considered.^  To  satisfy  all  who 
expect  office  is  impossible  ;  to  satisfy  the  few  who  deserve 
it  is  a  laborious  and  not  altogether  grateful  business.  The 
statesman  whom  it  is  proposed  to  appoint  as  Minister  for 
War  may  yearn  for  the  Lord  Chancellorship  ;  the  prospective 
President  of  the  Board  of  Trade  desires  to  become  Irish 
Secretary.  It  is  for  the  Prime  Minister,  by  coaxing  or 
entreaties,  to  content  them  both.  But  there  are  less  pleasant 
duties  than  this  to  perform.  Certain  ex-Cabinet  Ministers  who 
have  not  proved  a  success  in  their  various  departments  must 
be  shelved  with  as  little  damage  to  their  feelings  as  possible  ; 
salves  in  the  form  of  peerages  must  be  administered  to  other 
aggrieved  politicians  who  have  been  left  out.  At  times 
ex-Ministers  who  are  no  longer  members  of  the  Cabinet  have 
shown  signs  of  disinclination  to  retire.  In  iSoi,  for  instance, 
when  Addington  became  Prime  Minister,  Lord  Loughborough, 
who  had  been  Chancellor  in  Pitt's  administration,  resigned  the 
Great  Seal,  but  continued  to  attend  Cabinet  meetings,  and 
Addington  was  eventually  compelled  to  write  and  ask  him  to 
deprive  the  Cabinet  of  the  pleasure  of  his  distinguished 
presence.^ 

The  manner  of  appointing  a  Minister,  as  also  the  manner 
of  acquainting  a  colleague  that  his  services  are  no  longer 
required,  varies  with  different  Premiers.  One  may  be  as  curt 
in  his  methods  of  appointment  as  another  is  in  his  mode  of 
dismissal.  Walpole  and  North  provide  excellent  examples 
of  this.  On  the  death  of  Lord  Chancellor  Talbot  in  i^iQ-j^ 
Walpole  offered  the  Great  Seal  to  Lord  Hardwicke  who  was 
then  Lord  Chief  Justice.  The  latter  hesitated  about  accepting 
the  office,  until  one  day  the  Prime  Minister  impatiently 
informed  him  that  unless  he  made  up  his  mind  without  any 

^  The  necessity  of  pleasing  George  III.  compelled  many  Prime 
Ministers  to  include  his  friend  Addington  in  their  administrations,  and 
inspired  Canning  to  remark  that  this  Minister  was  like  the  small-pox, 
which  everybody  was  obliged  to  have  once  in  their  lives. 

2  Campbell's  "  Lives  of  the  Chancellors,"  vol.  v.  p.  327. 


HIS   MAJESTY'S   SERVANTS  97 

further  delay,  the  Seal  would  be  given  to  Fazakerley,  another 
famous  lawyer.  Hardwicke  remonstrated  that  Fazakerley 
was  quite  unfit  for  the  post  of  Lord  Chancellor,  being  both 
a  Tory  and  a  Jacobite.  "  Never  mind,"  replied  Walpole, 
pulling  out  his  watch.  "  It  is  now  exactly  noon.  If  you  do 
not  let  me  know  that  you  have  closed  with  my  offer  before 
eight  o'clock  this  evening,  I  can  only  tell  you  that,  by 
twelve,  Fazakerley  will  be  as  good  a  Whig  as  any  man 
in  His  Majesty's  dominions !  "  Hardwicke  hesitated  no 
longer.^ 

Lord  North's  method  of  dismissing  Fox  from  his  Cabinet 
in  1774  was  no  less  peremptory.  "Sir,"  wrote  the  Prime 
Minister,  "  His  Majesty  has  thought  proper  to  order  a  new 
commission  of  the  Treasury  to  be  made  out,  in  which  I  do 
not  perceive  your  name."  ^ 

It  is  seldom  that  a  Prime  Minister  can  give  complete 
satisfaction  in  the  formation  of  a  Ministry,  though  the  task  is 
perhaps  lightened  by  the  fact  that  the  possession  of  rare 
ability  is  not  an  absolute  necessity  for  a  Cabinet  Minister. 

In  185 1  the  Prince  Consort  sent  Lord  Derby  the  examina- 
tion papers  which  Prince  Alfred  had  been  set  when  he  passed 
as  a  naval  cadet.  "  As  I  looked  over  them,"  wrote  the  Prime 
Minister  in  his  reply,  "  I  couldn't  but  feel  very  grateful  that 
no  such  examination  was  necessary  to  qualify  Her  Majesty's 
Ministers  for  their  offices,  as  it  would  very  seriously  increase 
the  difficulty  of  framing  an  administration  !  " 

A  curious  list,  as  Macaulay  suggested,  could  be  made  out 
of  successful  Lord  Chancellors  ignorant  of  the  principles  of 
equity,  and  of  First  Lords  of  the  Admiralty  ignorant  of  the 
principles  of  navigation.  Sheridan  even  went  so  far  as  to  say 
that  a  competent  knowledge  of  the  Rule  of  Three  was  a 
sufficient  qualification  for  the  Chancellorship  of  the  Exchequer. 
Fox  never  understood  what  was  meant  by  Consols.  He  only 
knew  them  to  be  things  which  rose  and  fell,  and  he  was 
delighted  when  they  fell,  because,  as  he  said,  it  annoyed  Pitt 

1  "  Life  of  Eldon,"  vol.  iii.  p.  486. 

2  '•  History  of  the  Political  Life  of  C.  J.  Fox,"  pp.  76-7. 


98  THE   MOTHER   OF   PARLIAMENTS 

so  much.  Lowe,  who  took  a  gloomy  view  of  his  office,^  always 
admitted  that  he  was  "a  bad  hand  at  figures,"  and  his 
financial  statements  as  Chancellor  were  both  obscure  and  un- 
intelligible. Lord  Randolph  Churchill,  too,  when  he  was  at 
the  Treasury,  is  always  supposed  to  have  remarked  to  a  clerk 
who  brought  him  a  list  of  decimal  figures,  that  he  "  never 
could  understand  what  those  d d  dots  meant !  " 

Government  departments  are  to  a  great  extent  run  by  the 
permanent  officials.  As  Sir  George  Lewis,  himself  successively 
Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer,  Home  Secretary,  and  Minister 
for  War,  justly  observed,  it  is  not  the  business  of  a  Cabinet 
Minister  to  work  his  department.  His  business  is  to  see  that 
it  is  properly  worked.  If  he  does  too  much,  he  is  probably 
doing  harm.  The  permanent  staff  of  the  oflfice  can  do  what 
he  chooses  to  do  much  better  than  he,  or,  if  they  cannot,  they 
ought  to  be  removed.  Strength  of  purpose,  quickness  of 
decision,  and  a  good  supply  of  sterling  common-sense  are 
worth  more  to  a  Minister  than  mere  technical  knowledge.^ 

Besides  the  appointment  of  his  colleagues,  the  Prime 
Minister  also  has  in  his  patronage  a  number  of  posts  in  the 
Royal  Household,  which  become  vacant  when  an  Administra- 
tion changes.  These  are  not  so  diflficult  to  fill,  and  are 
usually  distributed  among  members  of  the  House  of  Lords, 
who  are  thus  bound  to  their  party  by  ties  even  stronger  than 
those  of  sentiment.^ 

The  actual  Ministry  consists  of  over  forty  persons,  of 
whom  perhaps  a  quarter  form  the   Cabinet.'*      The   annual 

1  "  The  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer  exists  to  distribute  a  certain 
amount  of  human  misery,"  he  once  remarked,  "  and  he  who  distributes 
it  most  equally  is  the  best  Chancellor." 

2  See  Bagehot's  "  English  Constitution,"  p.  200. 

^  Among  the  offices  in  the  Royal  Household  which  are  filled  by  the 
Prime  Minister,  the  most  important  are  those  of  the  Master  of  the  Horse, 
the  Lord  Steward,  the  Lord  Chamberlain,  the  seven  Lords  in  Waiting, 
and  the  Mistress  of  the  Robes. 

*  A  complete  Hst  of  the  salaries  and  offices  of  Ministers  does  not  lie 
within  the  scope  of  this  volume.  It  will  be  sufficient  to  enumerate  briefly 
the  most  important  members  of  the  administration.      First  in  order  of 


HIS   MAJESTY'S   SERVANTS  99 

cost  to  the  country  in  ministerial  salaries  is  well  under 
;^200,ooo,  and  cannot  therefore  be  considered  excessive, 
considering  the  delicacy  of  the  administrative  machine,  the 
efficiency  with  which  it  is  run,  and  the  amount  of  work  that 
has  to  be  accomplished. 

The  labours  of  Cabinet  Ministers  have  increased  enor- 
mously in  modern  times.  This  is  perhaps  one  of  the  reasons 
why  they  no  longer  deem  it  necessary  to  attend  debates  as 
regularly  as  their  predecessors.  In  Disraeli's  time  all  the 
members  of  the  Cabinet  sat  on  the  Treasury  Bench  through- 
out a  debate,  and  listened  attentively  to  every  speech.  It 
was  considered  obligatory  upon  the  Leader  of  the  House 
to  be  present  perpetually  in  his  place  in  Parliament.  Neither 
Gladstone  nor  Disraeli  would  have  thought  of  leaving  the 
Chamber,  except  for  a  hurried  dinner,  until  the  House  rose. 
The  sittings  have  become  so  lengthy  of  late  that  it  would  be 
impossible  for  any  Minister  thus  to  give  up  his  whole  time 
to  debate.  Ministers  are  consequently  provided  with  private 
rooms  within  the  precincts  of  the  House,  whither  they  betake 
themselves  as  soon  as  question  time  is  over,  leaving  one  or 
two  of  their  number  to  act  as  sentinels. 

The  cup  of  a  young  politician's  happiness  is  filled  to  the 
brim  on  that  glad  day  when  he  is  offered  a  post  in  the 
Ministry.     It  does  not  actually  overflow  until  he  has  been 

precedence  stand  the  Prime  Minister,  the  Lord  High  Chancellor,  the 
Lord  President  of  the  Council,  the  Lord  Privy  Seal  (an  office  to  which, 
like  that  of  the  Prime  Minister,  no  salary  is  attached),  and  the  First 
Lords  of  the  Treasury  and  Admiralty.  After  these  come  the  five 
Secretaries  of  State:  for  Home  Affairs,  Foreign  Affairs,  the  Colonies, 
War,  and  India.  These  are  followed  by  the  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer, 
the  Secretaries  for  Scotland  and  Ireland,  the  Postmaster-General,  the 
Presidents  of  the  Board  of  Trade,  Local  Government  Board,  Board  of 
Agriculture,  and  Board  of  Education,  the  Chancellor  of  the  Duchy  of 
Lancaster,  and  the  First  Commissioner  of  Works.  There  are,  besides, 
eight  Parliamentary  Under-Secretaries,  four  Junior  Lords  of  the  Treasury 
(one  of  whom  is  unpaid),  a  Patronage  Secretary,  a  Financial  Secretary, 
a  Paymaster-General,  Attorney- General,  and  Solicitor-General.  Scotland 
is  represented  by  a  Lord-Advocate  and  a  Scottish  Solicitor-General ; 
Ireland  by  a  Lord-Lieutenant,  a  Lord  Chancellor,  an  Attorney-General, 
and  a  Solicitor-General. 


100  THE   MOTHER   OF   PARLIAMENTS 

given  a  seat  in  the  Cabinet  itself.  Should  such  success  attend 
him,  the  summit  of  his  ambition  is  within  sight.  In  imagina- 
tion he  sees  the  mantle  of  Walpole  descending  upon  his 
shoulders.  Before  his  eyes  stretches  a  vista  of  political 
splendour  which  only  reaches  a  glorious  conclusion  when  the 
vaults  of  Westminster  Abbey  open  to  receive  his  ashes. 
There  is  but  one  fly  in  the  ointment.  A  member  of  the 
House  of  Commons  who  is  appointed  to  ministerial  office  has 
perforce  to  submit  himself  once  more  to  the  judgment  of  the 
electors,  and  beg  his  constituents  to  return  him  again  to 
Parliament.  This  rule  is  some  two  centuries  old,  and  was 
designed  to  prevent  the  corruption  of  unworthy  members 
who  might  otherwise  be  bought  by  the  offer  of  lucrative 
Crown  appointments.^  It  is  no  longer  of  any  practical  value 
for  this  purpose,  and  so  tiresome  a  practice,  entailing  as  it 
does  much  hardship  and  expense  upon  a  newly  created 
Minister,  could  well  be  abolished.  Old  customs  die  hard, 
however,  and  nowhere  do  they  take  so  "  unconscionably  long 
a  time  a-dying  "  as  in  Parliament. 

The  ratification  by  the  sovereign  of  the  Prime  Minister's 
choice  in  the  matter  of  colleagues  is  a  brief  but  not  unimpos- 
ing  ceremony.  To  each  of  the  three  Secretariats  of  State 
there  belongs  a  seal  which  is  the  outward  and  visible  sign  of 
the  authority  attaching  to  the  post.  When  a  Government 
goes  out  of  office  and  a  fresh  Ministry  is  appointed,  the  seals 
are  delivered  up  in  person  to  the  sovereign  by  the  outgoing 
Ministers.  His  Majesty  then  hands  them  to  the  members  of 
the  new  Administration,  who  receive  their  badges  of  office  in 
a  suitably  humble  attitude,  on  their  knees,  and  kiss  the  royal 
hand  that  confers  these  favours. 

The  seals  of  office  have  been  the  unconscious  cause  of 
more  indifferent  puns  than  any  other  parliamentary  institu- 
tion. Statesmen  who  have  never  previously  been  guilty  of  a 
sense  of  humour,  and   have  otherwise   led  blameless   lives, 

*  Exceptions  are  made  by  Statute  in  favour  of  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury  and  some  other  officers,  or  of  a  Minister  who  is  transferred  from 
one  office  to  another  in  the  same  Administration. 


H    r-    X. 


r  ^  2 

2  o  ; 

u  -:  - 


HIS   MAJESTY'S   SERVANTS  loi 

seem  unable  to  refrain  from  making  little  jokes  on  the  subject 
of  seal  fisheries — ^jokes  which  their  biographers  affectionately 
enshrine  as  epigrams  in  their  published  Lives.^  We  have 
fortunately  outgrown  such  humour  as  this,  and  puns  are 
nowadays  only  to  be  found  elsewhere  among  the  obiter  dicta 
of  our  judges  and  magistrates  upon  their  respective  benches. 
The  Ministry  is  now  formed.  The  Prime  Minister  moves 
into  Downing  Street;  his  colleagues  hasten  to  make  them- 
selves acquainted  with  the  work  of  their  various  departments. 
The  parliamentary  concert  is  about  to  commence,  and  it  is 
for  the  Premier  as  leader  of  the  Government  orchestra  to  keep 
his  band  together  as  best  he  may.  This  is  no  easy  task.  A 
single  false  note  may  mar  the  harmony  of  the  whole  perform- 
ance ;  the  failure  of  one  solitary  instrumentalist  may  cause 
the  dismissal  of  the  entire  band.  It  is  the  conductor's  duty 
to  see  that  his  orchestra  plays  in  unison,  or,  if  not  in  unison, 
at  least  in  harmony.  He  must  keep  a  watchful  eye  upon  each 
individual,  and  quash  the  efforts  of  any  one  member  to 
perform  a  solo  upon  his  own  peculiar  trumpet.  All  round 
the  platform  sit  the  members  of  a  former  band,  stern  critics 
anxious  to  seize  the  instruments  from  the  hands  of  their  rivals 

'  Lord  Chancellors  and  Keepers  of  the  Great  Seal  are  very  prone 
to  puns.  When  Lord  Campbell  replaced  Lord  Plunket  as  Chancellor 
of  Ireland  he  had  to  cross  the  Channel  in  a  storm.  Plunket's  secretary 
remarked  that  if  the  new  Chancellor  were  not  drowned,  he  would  be 
very  sick.  "  Perhaps,"  said  Plunket,  "  he'll  throw  up  the  seals  !  "  Lord 
Chancellor  Westbury  once  told  an  eminent  counsel  that  he  was  getting 
as  fat  as  a  porpoise.  "  In  that  case,"  replied  the  other,  "  I  am  evidently 
a  fit  companion  of  the  great  Seal."  Lord  Lyndhurst  is  another  Chancellor 
who  made  a  joke  of  this  sort.  There  must  be  something,  too,  in  the 
atmosphere  of  a  change  of  Ministry  which  evokes  bad  puns.  When 
Disraeli  was  appointed  to  Lord  Derby's  Cabinet  in  1852,  more  than  one 
eminent  politician  facetiously  remarked  that  now  Benjamin's  mess  would 
be  five  times  as  great  as  that  of  the  others.  And,  fourteen  years  later, 
when  the  same  statesman  was  bidden  to  form  aMinistry  of  his  own,  Lord 
Chelmsford,  whom  he  had  relieved  of  the  Chancellorship  of  the  Ex- 
chequer, shamelessly  observed  that  if  the  old  Government  was  "the 
Derby,"  this  new  one  was  certainly  "  the  Hoax  "  (see  Martin's  "  Life 
of  Lyndhurst,"  p.  481  n.,  and  the  "Life  of  Lord  Granville,"  vol.  i. 
p.  479,  etc.). 


T02  THE   MOTHER   OF   PARLIAMENTS 

and  show  the  public  how  the  tune  should  be  played.  Their 
chance  will  soon  arrive.  For  when  the  concert  has  gone  on 
sufficiently  long,  the  popular  audience  grows  weary  of  the  per- 
formance and  demands  something  fresh.  Another  conductor 
is  chosen,  and  another  orchestra  engaged  to  play.  The  old 
band  is  dismissed,  and  its  members  are  free  to  return  to  their 
former  avocations,  wiser  no  doubt,  but  perhaps  poorer  men.^ 
But  though  from  Parliament  to  Parliament  the  performers 
may  vary  and  the  leaders  change,  the  music  remains  very 
much  the  same ;  and,  while  the  country  enjoys  the  privilege 
of  paying  the  piper,  it  is  generally  the  piper  who  calls  the 
tune. 

*  If  Pitt  had  been  dismissed  from  office  "  after  more  than  five  years 
of  boundless  power,"  says  Macaulay,  "  he  would  hardly  have  carried  out 
with  him  a  sum  sufficient  to  furnish  a  set  of  chambers  in  which,  as  he 
cheerfully  declared,  he  meant  to  resume  the  practice  of  the  Law." — 
"  Miscellaneous  Writings,"  p.  347. 


CHAPTER  VI 
THE    LORD   CHANCELLOR 

FROM  the  days  of  Sir  Thomas  More  to  the  present  time 
the  Woolsack  has  continuously  enriched  the  annals  of 
English  history  with  famous  and  distinguished  names. 
The  well-known  biographies  of  Lord  Campbell,  whose  habit  of 
writing  the  lives  of  the  deceased  as  soon  as  the  breath  was 
out  of  their  bodies  added,  as  Brougham  declared,  a  new  terror 
to  death,  supply  abundant  evidence  of  the  statesmanlike 
qualities  that  attach  to  the  holders  of  the  office.  The  most 
eminent  men  of  their  day  have  held  the  Chancellorship, 
proving  the  truth  of  Burke's  well-known  assertion  that  of  all 
human  studies  the  law  is  the  most  efficacious  in  forming  great 
men,  and  that  to  be  well  versed  in  the  laws  of  England  is  to 
be  imbued  in  the  subHmest  principles  of  human  wisdom. 

The  office  of  Chancellor  is  of  very  ancient  origin.^  It 
existed  in  England  in  the  days  of  the  Anglo-Saxon  kings, 
when  the  official  who  acted  as  judicial  secretary  or  clerk  to 
the  sovereign  is  supposed  to  have  derived  his  title  from  the 
cancelli  or  screens  behind  which  he  carried  on  his  clerical 
duties. 

After  their  conversion  to  Christianity,  the  kings  employed 

^  Lord  EUesmere  observes  that  in  the  8th  Chapter  of  Samuel, 
Jehoshaphat  the  son  of  Abilud,  the  Chancellor  among  the  Hebrews, 
was  called  "  Mazur,"  which,  translated  into  English,  becomes  "  Sopher," 
or  Recorder.  "  Whether  the  Lord  Chancellor  of  England  as  now  he  is, 
may  be  properly  termed  Sopher  or  Mazur,  it  may  receive  some  needlesse 
question,  howbeit  it  cannot  be  doubted  but  his  office  doth  participate  of 
both  their  Functions." — "  Observations  concerning  the  Office  of  Lord 
Chancellor,"  p.  2. 

103 


104  THE  MOTHER   OF   PARLIAMENTS 

the  services  of  a  priest  as  chaplain  or  confessor,  and  in  the 
person  of  the  Chancellor  the  posts  of  "  Keeper  of  the  King's 
Conscience  "  and  secretary  were  thus  naturally  combined.  In 
King  Ethelred's  time  the  Chancellorship  was  divided  between 
the  Abbots  of  Ely,  Canterbury  and  Glastonbury,  who  exercised 
it  in  turn,  each  for  four  months. 

The  appointment  continued  for  several  centuries  to  be 
held  by  a  cleric.  In  the  early  days  of  Parliament,  indeed, 
the  Chancellor  received  his  writ  of  summons  as  a  Bishop  and 
not  as  Chancellor,  and,  though  he  attended  in  the  latter 
capacity  in  any  case,  no  summons  was  sent  to  him  if  he  did 
not  happen  to  be  a  bishop.  Ecclesiastics  were  appointed  to  the 
Chancellorship,  without  exception,  until  the  time  of  Sir  Robert 
Bourchier  in  1340,  and  it  was  not  for  a  long  time  after  this 
that  spiritual  statesmen  wholly  gave  place  to  lawyers.  Thomas 
a  Beckett,  William  of  Wykeham  and  Cardinal  Wolsey,  figure 
prominently  among  the  clerical  Chancellors  of  early  times, 
and  it  was  not  until  the  beginning  of  the  seventeenth  century 
that  laymen  succeeded  in  establishing  themselves  firmly  upon 
the  Woolsack.  Since  that  time  no  cleric,  with  the  single 
exception  of  Bishop  Williams,  in  1621,  has  been  entrusted 
with  the  Chancellorship  or  the  custody  of  the  Great  Seal. 

One  of  the  chief  duties  of  the  Chancellor  in  early  times 
consisted  in  affixing  the  royal  Seal  with  which  from  time 
immemorial  the  will  of  the  sovereign  has  been  expressed. 
At  the  present  day  Royal  grants  and  warrants,  Letters- 
Patent  of  Peerage  or  for  inventions,  Commissions  of  the 
Peace,  etc.,  are  issued  under  what  Coke  calls  the  Clavis 
Regni.  When  the  sovereign  is  absent  it  acts  as  his  repre- 
sentative, and  Parliament  itself  is  opened  by  a  Commission 
under  the  Great  Seal.  This  emblem  of  sovereignty  may 
therefore  be  considered  one  of  the  most  important  instruments 
of  the  Constitution,  and,  as  its  loss  would  entail  endless 
inconvenience,  it  is  given  into  the  custody  of  the  Lord  Keeper 
or  Lord  Chancellor.^    As  secretary  to  the  King  the  Chancellor 

*  The  Seal  was  stolen  from  Lord  Thurlow  by  burglars  in  1784,  and 
the  offer  of  a  reward  of  ^200  failed  to  retrieve  it.    When  Lord  Chancellor 


THE   LORD   CHANCELLOR  105 

would  seem  to  have  been  its  natural  custodian,  but  when  he 
fell  sick  or  died,  or  went  abroad,  it  was  occasionally  placed  in 
other  hands.  Later  on  it  became  the  custom  to  make  the 
Keepership  of  the  Great  Seal  a  regular  appointment,  separate 
and  distinct  from  the  Lord  Chancellorship. 

The  post  of  Lord  Keeper  has  been  held  by  statesmen, 
courtiers,  and  divines,  and  the  duties  of  the  office  have  even 
been  undertaken  on  two  occasions  by  women.  Queen  Eleanor, 
the  first  Lady  Keeper,  was  also  the  most  unpopular.  While 
her  husband  was  abroad  in  1253,  and  the  Great  Seal  was  in 
her  custody,  she  made  use  of  her  delegated  power  to  lay 
a  heavy  tax  on  all  vessels  bearing  cargo  to  London,  and 
showered  gifts  of  English  land  and  places  upon  her  foreign 
relatives.  She  thus  succeeded  in  arousing  the  hatred  of  the 
London  mob,  who  expressed  their  dislike  in  a  material  fashion 
by  pelting  her  with  mud.  To  avoid  the  fury  of  the  populace 
Queen  Eleanor  fled  abroad,  and  only  returned  to  England  to 
take  refuge  in  a  convent.^  The  other  Lady  Keeper,  Queen 
Isabella,  who  held  the  Great  Seal  in  132 1,  had  no  actual 
commission,  and  was  not  entrusted  with  any  judicial  power. 
But  she  kept  the  Seal  in  a  casket,  and  delivered  it  each  day 
as  it  was  required  to  the  Master  of  the  Rolls,  and  may  there- 
fore claim  to  be  included  in  the  list  of  Keepers. 

The  post  of  Lord  Keeper  and  Lord  Chancellor  first  became 
identical  in  Queen  Elizabeth's  time,  when  the  Great  Seal  was 

Eldon's  house  at  Encombe  caught  fire  in  18 12,  he  buried  the  Seal  for 
safety's  sake  in  the  garden,  and  then  forgot  where  he  had  buried  it.  His 
family  spent  most  of  the  next  day  digging  for  it  before  it  was  finally  re- 
covered. Eldon  seems  to  have  taken  the  fire  very  easily.  "  It  really 
was  a  very  pretty  sight,"  he  wrote,  "for  all  the  maids  turned  out  of  their 
beds,  and  formed  a  line  from  the  water  to  the  fire-engine,  handing  the 
buckets  ;  they  looked  very  pretty,  all  in  their  shifts."  Campbell's  "  Lives 
of  the  Chancellors,"  vol.  vii.  p.  300. 

*  Queen  Eleanor  was  a  remarkable  woman.  At  the  age  of  thirteen 
she  was  the  author  of  a  heroic  poem,  and  in  the  following  year  became  a 
wife.     Piers  of  Langtoft  describes  her  as 

"  The  fayrest  Maye  in  lyfe, 
Her  name  Elinore  of  gentle  nurture. 
Beyond  the  sea  there  was  no  such  creature." 


io6  THE   MOTHER   OF   PARLIAMENTS 

entrusted  to  Sir  Nicholas  Bacon,  who,  with  his  son  Sir  Francis 
and  the  great  Lord  Burghley,  may  be  considered  the  most 
eminent  of  Elizabethan  Chancellors.  Sir  Nicholas  has  been 
called  an  "  archpiece  of  wit  and  wisdom,"  ^  and  was  also  well 
suited  physically  to  combine  the  two  important  offices.  By 
nature  a  man  of  gigantic  size,  he  grew  more  bulky  with 
advancing  years,  and  though  his  dignity  was  thus  increased, 
the  progress  of  Chancery  business  suffered  in  proportion. 
When  he  took  his  seat  on  the  bench,  after  walking  from  the 
Court  of  Chancery  to  the  Star  Chamber,  Sir  Nicholas  always 
spent  some  considerable  time  in  recovering  his  breath.  The 
proceedings  were  accordingly  delayed  until  he  had  struck  the 
ground  three  times  with  his  stick  as  a  signal  that  he  was  in  a 
condition  to  resume  work.  As  was  fitting  in  a  man  of  his 
position,  Lord  Keeper  Bacon  inspired  intense  awe  amongst 
his  subordinates.  Indeed,  the  reverence  with  which  he  was 
universally  regarded  eventually  proved  the  indirect  cause  of 
his  death.  One  day,  while  he  was  having  his  hair  cut,  he 
fell  into  a  profound  slumber,  from  which  no  one  had  the 
courage  to  rouse  him.  "I  durst  not  disturb  you,"  said  the 
barber,  when  Sir  Nicholas  at  last  awoke,  chilled  to  the  bone. 
"  By  your  civility  I  lose  my  life,"  was  the  Lord  Keeper's  reply  ; 
and  in  a  few  days  his  prophecy  was  fulfilled.  Though,  with 
Sir  Nicholas  Bacon,  the  two  posts  of  Keeper  and  Chancellor 
became  united,  it  was  not  until  the  time  of  George  III.  that 
the  modern  system  originated  of  conferring  the  Great  Seal 
and  the  title  of  Lord  Chancellor  simultaneously. 

In  mediaeval  days  the  Chancellorship  and  the  Lord 
Kcepership  were  often  held  in  conjunction  with  other  offices. 
Stratford  was  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  as  well  as  Lord 
Chancellor  in  1334,  and,  though  his  ecclesiastical  duties  were 
too  onerous  to  permit  of  his  discharging  the  functions  of  the 
Lord  Keepership,  they  did  not  prevent  him  from  retaining  to 
himself  the  fees  of  that  office.  In  1532,  Thomas  Audley,  the 
Speaker  of  the  House  of  Commons,  was  appointed  Lord 
Keeper  in  succession  to  Sir  Thomas  More,  and  held  both 
^  Naunton's  "  Fragmenta  Regalia,"  p.  38. 


THE   LORD   CHANCELLOR  107 

appointments  simultaneously  until  he  was  made  Lord  Chan- 
cellor. And  as  recently  as  the  reign  of  Charles  IL,  a  Prime 
Minister,  the  Earl  of  Clarendon,  combined  the  posts  of  Premier 
and  Chancellor, 

The  office  of  Lord  Chancellor  developed  into  one  of 
primary  importance  in  the  time  of  Edward  L,  when,  from 
being  but  a  member  of  the  Aula  Regis,  he  became  the  presi- 
dent of  a  separate  court,  a  Court  of  Equity.  Law  and 
Equity  have,  to  a  certain  extent,  been  antagonistic  ever  since 
the  days  when  kings  were  advised  by  clerics  and  opposed  by 
lawyers.  In  the  eyes  of  the  latter  Equity  was  often,  as 
Selden  says,  "  a  roguish  thing,"  untrustworthy,  and  largely 
dependent  upon  the  conscience  of  individual  Chancellors,  "  and 
as  that  is  larger  or  narrower,  so  is  Equity."  But  however 
exaggerated  the  claim  of  Equity  to  be  the  "law  of  God," 
"the  law  of  nature,"  or  "law  of  reason,"  ^  it  has  at  least 
vindicated  its  position  in  the  statutory  enactment  that,  where 
there  is  a  conflict,  its  rules  arc  to  prevail  over  those  of  the 
Common  Law." 

The  conscience  of  some,  at  least,  of  England's  early  Lord 
Chancellors  possessed  peculiarly  plastic  qualities.  They  them- 
selves were  not  infrequently  ignorant  of  the  principles  of  law. 
Occasionally,  too,  their  conduct  and  character  were  such  that 
it  is  hard  to  imagine  them  as  the  fount  of  Equity  or  justice. 
Lord  Wriothesley,  Chancellor  in  1544,  combined  legal  incom- 
petence with  the  most  intense  religious  bigotry.^  Chancellor 
Sir  Francis   Bacon,  philosopher,  writer,  and    lawyer,  whose 

*  **  The  Fyrste  Dyaloge  in  Englys,  between  a  Doctoure  of  Dyvynyte 
and  a  Student  in  the  Lawes  of  England"  (1539). 

2  Judicature  Act  of  1873,  section  24. 

'His  barbarous  treatment  of  the  wretched  Anne  Askew  is  notorious. 
For  denying  that  the  sacramental  blood  and  wine  lost  their  material 
elements  after  consecration,  Anne  was  condemned  to  be  tortured,  and 
the  Lord  Chancellor  with  his  own  hands  stretched  the  rack  on  which  the 
unfortunate  woman  was  bound,  in  the  hope  of  extracting  a  confession. 
It  must,  however,  be  admitted  that  Wriothesley's  heart  was  not  entirely 
impervious  to  emotion,  for  when,  as  Lord  Chancellor,  he  announced  the 
death  of  Henry  VIII.  in  the  House  of  Lords,  he  could  not  refrain  from 
bursting  into  tears. 


io8  THE   MOTHER  OF   PARLIAMENTS 

name  is  one  of  the  most  famous  in  English  history,  was 
forced  to  plead  guilty  to  a  charge  of  "  corruption  and  neglect," 
for  which  offence  he  was  deprived  of  the  Great  Seal,  fined  a 
sum  of  ;^40,ooo,  and  imprisoned  in  the  Tower.  A  hundred 
years  later  Lord  Chancellor  Macclesfield  was  impeached  and 
fined  for  corrupt  practices  with  regard  to  the  sale  of  Master- 
ships in  Chancery  ;  while  the  brutal  Jeffreys,  stained  with  the 
blood  of  hundreds  of  innocent  and  defenceless  persons,  was 
another  Lord  Chancellor  whose  presence  added  nothing  to 
the  prestige  of  the  Woolsack.^ 

Many  centuries  elapsed  before  the  standard  of  judicial 
morality  in  England  attained  its  present  high  level,  but  even 
in  the  earliest  days  of  the  Chancellorship  we  find  occupants 
of  the  Woolsack  combining  legal  wisdom  with  particularly 
blameless  lives.  The  great  Sir  Thomas  More,  statesman  and 
author,  was  as  famous  for  the  extreme  simplicity  of  his  habits 
as  for  the  ability  with  which  he  despatched  Chancery  business. 
The  former  virtue  he  almost  carried  to  excess,  and  his  practice 
of  singing  in  the  choir  of  the  parish  church  at  Chelsea,  dressed 
in  a  surplice,  surprised  and  even  shocked  his  contemporaries. 
"God's  body!"  once  exclaimed  the  Duke  of  Norfolk,  seeing 
More  thus  attired  and  singing  lustily ;  "  My  Lord  Chancellor 
a  parish  clerk !  You  dishonour  the  King  and  his  oflSce." 
"  Nay,"  replied  More,  "  Your  Grace  may  not  think  that  the 
King,  your  master  and  mine,  will  be  offended  with  me  for 
serving  his  Master,  or  thereby  account  his  ofiice  dishonoured," 
and  he  resumed  his  interrupted  hymn. 

Jeffreys'  predecessor.  Lord  Guilford,  who,  as  Campbell 
tells  us,  "  had  as  much  law  as  he  could  contain,"  was  another 
Chancellor  of  blameless  morals.  In  an  age  when  the  posses- 
sion of  a  few  redeeming  vices  was  considered  the  mark  of  a 
gentleman,  the  purity  of  his  conduct  caused  him  some  natural 
unpopularity.     Indeed,  his  friends  strongly  advised  him  to 

'  He  was,  however,  an  able  lawyer,  and  reserved  his  orgies  for 
private  life.  "  If  my  Lord  Jefferies  exceeded  the  bounds  of  temperance 
now  and  then  in  an  evening,  it  does  not  follow  that  he  was  drunk  on  the 
bench  or  in  council."    (Campbell's  "  Lives,"  vol.  iii.  p.  595  note^ 


THE   LORD   CHANCELLOR  109 

take  a  mistress,  if  he  did  not  wish  to  lose  all  interest  at  Court, 
saying  that  people  naturally  looked  suspiciously  at  a  man 
who  declined  to  follow  the  general  practice  and  seemed  to 
be  continually  reprehending  them  by  his  superior  moral  tone. 
Lord  Guilford's  enemies  even  sought  to  revenge  themselves 
upon  him  by  spreading  reports  calculated  to  make  him  look 
ridiculous,  and  once,  when  the  Lord  Keeper  had  gone  to  the 
city  to  see  a  rhinoceros  which  was  on  view  there,  circulated  a 
story  to  the  effect  that  he  had  insisted  upon  riding  this  animal 
down  the  street.  Poor  Lord  Guilford  was  much  annoyed  ; 
he  was  blessed  with  a  most  exiguous  sense  of  humour,  and 
could  see  nothing  amusing  in  so  preposterous  a  suggestion. 
"  That  his  friends,  intelligent  persons,  who  must  know  him  to 
be  far  from  guilty  of  any  childish  levity,  should  believe  it, 
was  what  roiled  him  extremely,"  ^  he  declared. 

The  duties  of  the  Lord  Chancellor  are  manifold  and  of 
supreme  importance.  Lord  Lyndhurst,  who  himself  held  the 
Seal  three  times,  and  is  famous  not  only  as  an  orator  but  also 
as  the  originator  of  the  policy  of  what  is  known  as  the  Two 
Power  Standard,^  once  said  that  the  Chancellor's  work  might 
be  divided  into  three  classes:  "  first,  the  business  that  is  worth 
the  labour  done  ;  second,  that  which  does  itself;  and  third, 
that  which  is  not  done  at  all."  ^ 

In  his  Court  of  Chancery  the  Lord  Chancellor  formerly 
exercised  a  vast  jurisdiction.  At  one  time  all  writs  were 
issued  from  this  Court,  and  he  was  not  only  considered  the 
guardian  of  all  "children,  idiots,  and  lunatics,"  but,  as  Black- 
stone  says,  "  had  the  general  superintendance  of  all  charitable 
uses  in  the  Kingdom,"  and  was  the  visitor  of  all  hospitals  of 
royal  foundation.^     His  former  duties  in  these  respects  have 

^  Roger  North's  "Life  of  Lord  Guilford,"  vol.  ii.  p.  167.  (The  word 
roiled,  so  we  are  informed,  was  an  import  from  the  American  plantations.) 

2  "  If  we  wish  to  be  in  a  state  of  security,"  he  said,  in  1859,  "  if  we 
wish  to  maintain  our  great  interests,  if  we  wish  to  maintain  our  honour, 
it  is  necessary  that  we  should  have  a  power  measured  by  that  of  any  two 
possible  adversaries." 

3  H.  Crabb  Robinson's  "  Diary,"  vol.  iii.  p.  453. 
*  "  Commentaries,"  vol.  iii.  p.  47. 


no  THE   MOTHER   OF   PARLIAMENTS 

to  some  extent  been  delegated  to  other  judges  and  officers, 
acting  in  his  name  ;  the  issuing  of  writs,  though  also  in  his 
name,  has  been  transferred  to  the  Central  Office,  and  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  Court  of  Chancery  removed  to  the  Chancery 
Division  of  the  High  Court  of  Justice. 

His  judicial  position,  however,  is  probably  greater  than 
ever.  He  is  head  of  the  Law  and  of  the  Judges— a  vast 
though  still,  perhaps,  inadequate  number — President  of  the 
High  Court  of  Justice  and  of  the  Court  of  Appeal,  and,  above 
all,  of  the  highest  and  final  Court  of  the  realm,  the  House  of 
Lords.  Here  he  sits  continuously,  with  occasional  excursions 
to  preside  over  the  Judicial  Committee  of  the  Privy  Council 
to  which  come  all  appeals  from  India  and  the  Colonies. 
As  the  only  legal  member  of  the  Cabinet,  he  is  virtually  chief 
law  officer  of  the  Crown,  and  questions  of  domestic  or  inter- 
national law  are  submitted  for  his  advice  by  his  colleagues, 
the  heads  of  the  other  Departments  of  the  Government.  In 
his  capacity  of  Keeper  of  the  Great  Seal  he  may  never  leave 
the  Kingdom,  and  is  ex  officio  Speaker  of  the  House  of  Lords, 
and  must  attend  all  its  sittings.  The  Chancellor  does  not, 
however,  enjoy  rights  similar  to  those  of  the  Commons' 
Speaker  ;  he  is  not  addressed  in  debate  ;  he  does  not  call 
upon  peers  to  speak,  and  has  no  authority  to  settle  questions 
of  order. 

As  the  Woolsack  is  not  considered  to  be  within  the  limits 
of  the  House  of  Lords,  the  fact  of  a  Chancellor  being  a 
Commoner  does  not  prevent  him  from  sitting  there  and 
discharging  the  duties  of  Speaker ;  but  he  may  not  take  any 
other  part  in  the  proceedings  unless  he  be  himself  a  peer. 
Only  in  recent  times  has  the  Chancellor  been  necessarily 
made  a  peer,  and  there  exists  no  statutory  restriction  in- 
capacitating any  man,  unless  he  be  a  Roman  Catholic,  from 
holding  the  office  of  Lord  Chancellor.* 

The  limitation  of  his  powers  as  Speaker  of  the   Lords 

*  Sir  Robert  Harley,  Chancellor  in  1757,  was  not  made  a  peer  until 
1764.  In  1830,  Brougham  took  his  seat  on  the  Woolsack  as  a  Commoner, 
and  at  least  one  other  Chancellor  has  since  followed  his  example. 


THE   LORD   CHANCELLOR  in 

owes  its  origin  to  the  fact  that,  unlike  the  Chairman  of  the 
Commons,  the  Chancellor  is  always  a  partisan  appointed  by 
a  particular  Government,  and  retires  when  that  Government 
goes  out  of  office.  As  such,  he  takes  an  active  part  in  debate, 
and,  though  much  respect  would  be  paid  to  his  advice  on 
points  of  order,  it  need  never  be  followed,  and  he  has  no 
power  to  decide  questions  of  procedure  or  to  control  the 
conduct  of  his  fellow  peers. 

The  first  Chancellor  of  an  actively  partisan  character  was 
Lord  Thurlow — 

"  The  rugged  Thurlow  who  with  sullen  scowl, 
In  surly  mood,  at  friend  or  foe  will  growl" — 

whose  well-known  asperity  had  earned  for  him  the  title  of 
"the  Tiger."  It  was  said  of  him  that  in  the  Cabinet  he 
"  opposed  everything,  proposed  nothing,  and  was  ready  to 
support  anything."  He  was  supposed  to  have  derived  his 
descent  from  Thurloe,  Cromwell's  secretary.  "There  are 
two  Thurlows  in  my  county,"  he  remarked,  when  questioned 
upon  the  subject,  "Thurloe  the  secretary  and  Thurlow  the 
carrier.  I  am  descended  from  the  carrier."  ^  His  bad 
manners  on  the  bench  were  proverbial,  but  not  apparently 
incorrigible.  Once  at  the  commencement  of  the  Long  Vaca- 
tion, when  he  was  quitting  the  court  without  taking  the  usual 
leave  of  the  Bar,  a  young  barrister  whispered  to  a  companion, 
"  He  might  at  least  have  said  '  D you  ! '  "  Thurlow  over- 
heard the  remark,  returned  to  his  place,  and  politely  made 
his  bow.^  Eldon  said  of  Thurlow  that  he  was  a  sturdy  oak 
at  Westminster,  but  a  willow  at  St.  James's,  where  he  long 

*  Roscoe's  "  Eminent  British  Lawyers,"  p.  258.  (Other  Chancellors 
were  sprung  from  equally  humble  origin.  Edward  Sugden,  afterwards 
Lord  St.  Leonards,  was  the  son  of  a  barber.  To  him  is  attributed  a  repartee 
similar  to  that  made  many  years  earlier  by  Colonel  Birch,  M.P.,  who  was 
taunted  with  having  in  his  youth  been  a  carrier.  "  It  is  true,  as  the 
gentleman  says,  I  once  was  a  carrier,"  replied  Birch.  "  But  let  me  tell 
the  gentleman  that  it  is  very  fortunate  for  him  that  he  never  was  a 
carrier ;  for,  if  he  had  been,  he  would  be  a  carrier  still."  See  Burnet's 
"  History  of  His  Own  Time,''  p.  259. 

2  Hawkins's  "  Memoirs,"  vol.  ii.  p.  312. 


112  THE   MOTHER   OF   PARLIAMENTS 

figured  as  the  intimate  and  grateful  confidant  of  George  IH.^ 

"  Oft  may  the  statesman  in  St.  Stephen's  wave, 
Sink  in  St.  James's  to  an  abject  slave," 

but  Thurlow's  attitude  towards  his  royal  master  does  not 
appear  to  have  been  marked  by  extreme  servility.  Once, 
indeed,  when  the  Chancellor  had  taken  some  Acts  to  receive 
the  royal  assent,  he  read  one  or  two  of  them  through  to  the 

King  and  then  stopped.     "  It's  all  d d  nonsense  trying  to 

make  you  understand  this,"  said  Thurlow,  with  brutal  frank- 
ness, "  so  you  had  better  consent  to  them  at  once  !  "  And  if 
he  adopted  this  tone  to  his  King,  it  may  be  certain  that  his 
attitude  towards  his  equals  or  inferiors  was  no  less  over- 
bearing. 

Thurlow's  character  has  been  cruelly  portrayed  in  the 
Rolliad  under  the  heading : 

"How  TO   MAKE   A   CHANCELLOR." 

"Take  a  man  of  great  abilities,  with  a  heart  as  black  as 
his  countenance.  Let  him  possess  a  rough  inflexibility,  with- 
out the  least  tincture  of  generosity  or  affection,  and  be  as 
manly  as  oaths  and  ill-manners  can  make  him.  He  should  be 
a  man  who  should  act  politically  with  all  parties — hating  and 
deriding  every  one  of  the  individuals  who  compose  them."  ^ 

If  the  Speaker  of  the  Lords  had  been  expected  to  conduct 
himself  in  a  fashion  similar  to  that  of  the  Speaker  of  the 
Commons,  Thurlow's  behaviour  on  the  Woolsack  would 
certainly  have  given  rise  to  adverse  criticism.  He  was  a 
frank  and  bitter  partisan,  and  when  some  opponent  had 
spoken,  would  step  forward  on  to  the  floor  of  the  House  and, 
as  he  himself  described  it,  give  his  adversary  "  such  a  thump 
in  the  bread-basket  "  that  he  did  not  easily  recover  from  this 

'  He  declared,  on  a  famous  occasion,  that  his  debt  of  gratitude  to 
His  Majesty  was  ample,  for  the  many  favours  he  had  graciously  conferred 
upon  him,  which,  when  he  forgot,  might  his  God  forget  him  !     Wilkes, 

who  was  present,  muttered,  "  God  forget  you  !     He  will  see  you  d d 

first !  "  while  Burke  remarked  that  to  escape  the  memory  of  the  Almighty 
would  be  the  very  best  thing  Thurlow  could  hope  for. 

2  Page  430. 


THE  LORD   CHANCELLOR  113 

verbal  onslaught.^  Thurlovv's  pet  aversion  was  Lord  Lough- 
borough, his  successor  on  the  Woolsack.  When  Lough- 
borough spoke  effectively  upon  some  subject  opposed  by 
Thurlow,  who  had  not  however  taken  the  trouble  to  study  it, 
the  latter  could  be  heard  muttering  fiercely  to  himself.  "  If  I 
was  not  as  lazy  as  a  toad  at  the  bottom  of  a  well,"  he  would 
say,  "  I  could  kick  that  fellow  Loughborough  heels  over  head, 
any  day  of  the  week."  And  he  was  probably  right,  for  Lord 
Loughborough  was  a  notoriously  bad  lawyer,^  whereas  his 
rival's  sagacity  almost  refuted  Fox's  celebrated  saying  that 
"  Nobody  could  be  as  wise  as  Thurlow  looked!' 

The  amount  of  work  accomplished  by  a  Lord  Chancellor 
depends  very  largely  upon  the  man  himself,  as  we  may  see 
by  comparing  the  two  most  distinguished  Chancellors  of 
their  day — Lord  Eldon  and  Lord  Brougham. 

Eldon  had  worked  his  way  laboriously  from  the  very  foot 
to  the  topmost  rung  of  the  legal  ladder.  It  was  his  own 
early  experiences  that  inspired  him  to  say  that  nothing  did  a 
young  lawyer  so  much  good  as  to  be  half-starved.  And  in 
action  as  well  as  in  word  he  always  maintained  that  the  only 
road  to  success  at  the  Bar  was  "  to  live  like  a  hermit,  and  work 
like  a  horse." 

He  was  in  many  ways  an  original  character.  He 
always  wore  his  Chancellor's  wig  in  society,  and  was  other- 
wise unconventional.  One  day,  after  reading  much  of 
"  Paradise  Lost,"  he  was  asked  what  he  thought  of  Milton's 

"  Satan."     "  A  d d  fine  fellow,"  he  replied  ;  "  I  hope  he 

may  win."  In  spite  of  this  view,  however,  he  was  an  ex- 
tremely religious  man,  though  he  did  not  attend  divine 
service  regularly.  Indeed,  when  some  one  referred  to  him  as 
a  "  pillar  of  the  church,"  he  demurred,  saying  that  he  might 

^  Twiss's  "  Life  of  Eldon,"  vol.  i.  p.  214. 

2  Lord  Ellenborough  was  once  asked  by  his  hostess  after  dinner  to 
cease  conversing  with  his  host — a  judge — and  to  give  the  ladies  some 
conversation,  as  he  had  been  talking  law  long  enough.  "Madam,"  he 
replied,  "  I  beg  your  pardon  ;  we  have  not  been  talking  law,  or  anything 
like  law.  We  have  been  talking  of  one  of  the  decisions  of  Lord  Lough- 
borough."— Campbell's  "  Lives,"  vol.  vi.  p.  251. 
I 


114  THE   MOTHER   OF   PARLIAMENTS 

justly  be  called  a  buttress  but  not  a  pillar  of  the  church,  since 
he  was  never  to  be  found  inside  it.  He  is  probably  the  most 
typical  Tory  of  the  old  school  that  can  be  found  in  political 
history.  His  conservatism  was  of  an  almost  incredibly  stand- 
still and  reactionary  character.  As  Walter  Bagehot  said  of 
him  in  a  famous  passage,  he  believed  in  everything  which  it 
is  impossible  to  believe  in — "in  the  danger  of  Parliamentary 
Reform,  the  danger  of  Catholic  Emancipation,  the  danger  of 
altering  the  Court  of  Chancery,  the  danger  of  altering  the 
Courts  of  Law,  the  danger  of  abolishing  capital  punishment 
for  trivial  thefts,  the  danger  of  making  landowners  pay  their 
debts,  the  danger  of  making  anything  more,  the  danger  of 
making  anything  less."  ^ 

Though  on  political  questions  Eldon  could  make  up  his 
mind  quickly  enough,  on  the  bench  the  extreme  deliberation 
with  which  he  gave  judicial  decisions  was  the  subject  of 
endless  complaints.  He  agreed  with  Lord  Bacon  that  "who- 
soever is  not  wiser  upon  advice  than  upon  the  sudden,  the 
same  man  is  not  wiser  at  fifty  than  he  was  at  thirty."^  His 
perpetual  hesitation  in  Court,  the  outcome  of  an  intense 
desire  to  be  scrupulously  just,  gave  rise  to  attacks  both  in 
Parliament  and  the  press.^ 

'  Bagehot's  "  Literary  Studies,"  vol.  i.  p.  150. 

2  Like  Lord  Bacon,  too,  he  compiled  an  indifferent  "  Anecdote  Book." 
Bacon's  "  Collection  of  Apothegms,"  was  supposed  to  have  been  taken 
down  from  his  dictation  all  on  "  one  rainy  day,"  but  neither  the  brevity 
of  the  time  nor  the  inclemency  of  the  weather  is  a  sufficient  excuse  for 
so  poor  a  production. 

^  These  occasionally  took  the  form  of  lampoons  in  verse,  such  as  the 
following  : — 

The  Derivation  of  Chancellor 
"  The  Chancellor,  so  says  Lord  Coke, 
His  title  from  Cancello  took  ; 
And  ev'ry  cause  before  him  tried 
It  was  his  duty  to  decide. 
Lord  Eldon,  hesitating  ever. 
Takes  it  from  Chanceler,  to  waver. 
And  thinks,  as  this  may  bear  him  out, 
His  bounden  duty  is  to  doubt" 

Pryme's  "  Recollections,"  p.  11 1- 


LORD    ELDON 

FROM    THE    I'AINIlNi;    HY   SIR    THOMAS   LAWRENCE,    P.R.A.,    IN    THE    NATIONAL    PORTRAIT   (iALLERV 


* ' 


THE   LORD   CHANCELLOR  115 

A  Commission  was  eventually  appointed,  ostensibly  to 
inquire  into  the  means  by  which  time  and  expense  might 
be  saved  to  suitors  in  Chancery — where,  as  Sydney  Smith 
said,  Lord  Eldon  "sat  heavy  on  mankind" — but  really  to 
expose  the  dilatory  methods  of  the  Chancellor.  Eldon  came 
well  out  of  the  inquiry,  however,  and  it  was  proved  that  in 
the  twenty-four  years  during  which  he  had  held  the  Great 
Seal,  but  few  of  his  decisions  had  been  appealed  against,  and 
still  fewer  reversed. 

*  If  some  fault  could  be  found  with  Lord  Eldon  for  being 
a  slow  if  steady  worker,  no  such  complaint  could  be  levelled 
at  the  head  of  Lord  Brougham.  The  latter,  indeed,  erred 
on  the  side  of  extreme  haste,  and  was  as  restless  on  the 
bench  as  Eldon  was  composed,  and  as  ignorant  and  careless 
of  his  duties  as  his  predecessor  was  learned  and  scrupulous. 
Brougham's  cleverness,  was,  however,  amazing.  If  he  had 
known  a  little  law,  as  Lord  St.  Leonards  dryly  observed, 
he  would  have  known  a  little  of  everything.  He  has  been 
called  "  the  most  misinformed  man  in  Europe,"  and  in  early 
life,  when  he  was  one  of  the  original  founders  of  the  Edin- 
burgh Revieiv,  is  said  to  have  written  a  whole  number  him- 
self, including  articles  upon  lithotomy  and  Chinese  music. 
His  ability  and  brilliance  were  unsurpassed,  and  his  oratory 
was  superb.  His  famous  speech  (as  her  Attorney-General) 
in  defence  of  Queen  Caroline  was  one  of  the  finest  forensic 
efforts  ever  heard  in  the  House  of  Lords.^  His  many  talents 
have  been  epitomised  in  a  famous  saying  of  Rogers :  "  This 
morning  Solon,  Lycurgus,  Demosthenes,  Archimedes,  Sir 
Isaac  Newton,  Lord  Chesterfield,  and  a  great  many  more, 
went  away  in  one  post-chaise."  Yet  he  was  eminently  unsuc- 
cessful as  Chancellor,  and  his  domineering  fashion  of  treating 
his  colleagues  made  him  extremely  unpopular.  Brougham's 
loquacity  was  intolerable,  and  his  conceit  immense.     "  The 

*  "  There  never  was  anything  like  the  admiration  excited  by 
Brougham's  speech.  Lord  Harrowby,  G.  Somerset,  Mr.  Montagu,  and 
Granville  told  me  it  was  in  eloquence,  ability,  and  judicious  manage- 
ment beyond  almost  anything  they  ever  heard." — Lady  Granville's 
"  Letters "  (to  Lady  G.  Morpeth,  5  October,  1820),  vol.  i.  p.  181. 


Ii6  THE   MOTHER  OF   PARLIAMENTS 

Whigs  are  all  cyphers,"  he  once  declared,  "and  I  am  the 
only  unit  in  the  Cabinet  that  gives  a  value  to  them."  It 
must,  however,  be  admitted  that  he  was  a  great  statesman 
if  not  a  great  Chancellor,  and  that  to  his  unique  intellectual 
talents  we  owe  in  great  measure  the  emancipation  of  the 
negro  slave  and  the  passing  of  the  Reform  Bill. 

In  his  lifetime,  Brougham  was  almost  universally  disliked 
and  feared.  "A  '  B  '  outside  and  a  wasp  within,"  said  some 
wag,  pointing  to  the  simple  initial  on  the  panel  of  that 
carriage  which  Brougham  invented,  and  which  still  bears 
his  name.^  And  this  was  the  popular  view  of  that  Chancellor 
whom  Shell  called  "a  bully  and  a  buffoon."  Even  his  friends 
distrusted  him,  and  in  1835,  when  Lord  Melbourne  returned 
to  power,  the  Great  Seal,  which  Brougham  had  held  but  a 
year  before,  was  not  returned  to  him,  but  was  put  into  Com- 
mission. No  reasons  were  assigned  for  this  step,  but  they 
were  sufficiently  obvious.  "  My  Lords,"  said  Melbourne  in 
the  Upper  House,  when  Brougham  subsequently  attacked 
him  with  intense  bitterness,  "  you  have  heard  the  eloquent 
speech  of  the  noble  and  learned  Lord — one  of  the  most 
eloquent  he  ever  delivered  in  this  House — and  I  leave  your 
Lordships  to  consider  what  must  be  the  nature  and  strength 
of  the  objections  which  prevent  my  Government  from  availing 
themselves  of  the  services  of  such  a  man  ! "  -  Perhaps  one 
of  the  strongest  objections  was  the  intense  dislike  with  which 
the  ex-Chancellor  was  regarded  by  the  King.  This  was  not 
lessened  by  the  cavalier  fashion  in  which  Brougham  treated 
his  sovereign.  When  he  was  forced  to  return  the  Great 
Seal  into  the  Royal  hands  in  1834,  he  did  not  deliver  it  in 
person,  as  was  proper,  but  sent  it  in  a  bag  by  a  messenger, 
"  as  a  fishmonger,"  says  Lord  Campbell,  "  might  have  sent 
a  salmon  for  the  King's  dinner  !  " 

*  The  Duke  of  Wellington  once  chaffed  Brougham,  saying  that  he 
would  only  be  known  hereafter  as  the  inventor  of  a  carriage.  The 
Chancellor  retorted  by  remarking  that  the  Duke  would  only  be  remem- 
bered as  the  inventor  of  a   pair  of  boots.     "  D the  boots  ! "  said 

Wellington.     "  I  had  quite  forgotten  them  ;  you  have  the  best  of  it !  " 

2  Russell's  "  Recollections,"  p.  138. 


THE   LORD   CHANCELLOR  117 

A  Privy  Councillor,  by  virtue  of  his  office,  and  "  Prolocutor 
of  the  House  of  Lords  by  prescription,"  ^  the  Lord  High 
Chancellor  of  Great  Britain  occupies  to-day  the  "  oldest  and 
most  dignified  of  the  lay  offices  of  the  Crown."  By  ancient 
statute,  to  kill  him  is  a  treasonable  offence,  and  his  post  as 
Lord  Keeper  is  not  determined  by  the  demise  of  the  Crown. 
He  enjoys  precedence  after  the  Royal  Family  and  the  Arch- 
bishop of  Canterbury,  holds  one  of  the  most  prominent  places 
in  the  Cabinet,  and  is  the  highest  paid  servant  of  the  Crown. 

In  Henry  I.'s  time  the  Lord  Keeper  of  the  Great  Seal 
was  paid  5j.  a  day,  and  received  a  "  livery  "  of  provisions,  a 
pint  and  a  half  of  claret,  one  "  gross  wax-light "  and  forty 
candle-ends.  The  Chancellor's  perquisites  used  always  to 
include  a  liberal  supply  of  wine  from  the  King's  vineyards 
in  Gascony.  At  the  beginning  of  the  nineteenth  century, 
he  received  a  salary  of  ;iCi9,ooo;  but  Lord  Eldon,  in  1813, 
gave  up  ^5000  of  this  to  the  Vice-Chancellor,  and  for  a  long 
time  the  Woolsack  was  worth  ;^  14,000  a  year.  A  modern 
Chancellor's  salary  is  ;^io,ooo — ;i^5000  as  Lord  Chancellor, 
and  ;^5000  as  Speaker  of  the  House  of  Lords — and  he  is 
further  entitled  to  a  pension  of  half  that  amount  on  retirement 

The  extensive  patronage  that  attaches  to  the  office  adds 
much  to  its  importance.  The  Chancellor  recommends  the 
appointment  of  all  judges  of  the  High  Court  and  Court  of 
Appeal,  and  is  empowered  to  appoint  or  remove  County 
Court  judges  and  Justices  of  the  Peace.  He  also  has  the  gift 
of  all  Crown  livings  of  ^20  or  under,  according  to  the  valua- 
tion made  in  Henry  VHL's  reign,  and  of  many  other  places.^ 

*  Blackstone's  "  Commentaries,"  vol.  iii.  p.  47. 

2  Lord  Eldon,  who  dearly  loved  a  joke,  wrote  as  follows  to  his  friend, 
Dr.  Fisher,  of  the  Charter  House,  who  had  applied  to  him  for  a  piece  of 
preferment  then  vacant— 
"  Dear  Fisher, 

"I  cannot,  to-day,  give  you  the  preferment  for  which  you  ask. 
"  I  remain,  your  sincere  friend, 

"  Eldon. 

"  Ttirn  ovcrP 
(On  the  other  side  of  the  page  he  added) 
"  I  gave  it  to  you  yesterday." 

"  Life  of  Eldon,"  vol.  ii.  p.  612. 


ii8  THE   MOTHER   OF   PARLIAMENTS 

One  of  his  perquisites  is  the  Great  Seal,  which,  when  *'  broken 
up,"  becomes  the  property  of  the  reigning  Chancellor.  The 
breaking  up  of  the  Great  Seal  is  a  simple  ceremony  which 
inflicts  no  actual  damage  upon  the  article  itself.  Whenever 
a  new  Great  Seal  is  adopted,  at  the  beginning  of  a  new  reign, 
on  a  change  of  the  royal  arms,  or  when  the  old  Seal  is  worn 
out,  the  sovereign  gives  the  latter  a  playful  tap  with  a 
hammer,  and  it  is  then  considered  to  be  useless,  and  becomes 
the  property  of  the  Lord  Chancellor,  On  the  accession 
of  William  IV.  a  dispute  arose  between  Lord  Lyndhurst 
and  Lord  Brougham  as  to  who  should  possess  the  old  Seal. 
The  former  had  been  Chancellor  when  the  order  was  made 
for  the  engraving  of  the  new  Seal  ;  the  latter  had  occupied 
the  Woolsack  when  the  new  Seal  was  finished  and  ordered 
to  be  put  into  use.  The  King,  to  whom  the  question  was 
referred,  decided,  with  truly  Solomonian  sagacity,  that  the 
Seal  should  be  divided  between  the  two  Chancellors.^ 

The  people  of  England,  as  Disraeli  said  some  seventy 
years  ago,  have  been  accustomed  to  recognize  in  the  Lord 
Chancellor  a  man  of  singular  acutencss,  of  profound  learning, 
and  vast  experience,  who  has  won  his  way  to  a  great  position 
by  the  exercise  of  great  qualities,  by  patient  study,  and 
unwearied  industry.  They  expect  to  find  in  him  a  man  who 
has  obtained  the  confidence  of  his  profession  before  he 
challenges  the  confidence  of  his  country,  who  has  secured 
eminence  in  the  House  of  Commons  before  he  has  aspired  to 
superiority  in  the  House  of  Lords  ;  a  man  who  has  expanded 
from  a  great  lawyer  into  a  great  statesman,  and  who  "  brings 
to  the  Woolsack  the  commanding  reputation  which  has  been 
gained  in  the  long  and  laborious  years  of  an  admired  career."  ^ 
Seldom,  indeed,  are  the  people  of  England  disappointed. 

*  The  same  difficulty  arose  in  1S78,  when  Queen  Victoria  solved  it  by 
oUowing  the  precedent  set  in  1S31,  and  divided  the  Seal  between  Lord 
Cairns  and  his  predecessor. 

-  "  The  Runnyraedc  Letters,"  p.  230. 


CHAPTER   VII 
THE    SPEAKER 

THE  position  of  "  First  Commoner  of  the  Realm"  is, 
after  that  of  Prime  Minister,  the  most  distinguished 
as  well  as  the  most  difficult  to  which  it  is  possible 
for  any  man  to  attain  while  still  a  member  of  Parliament. 
A  comparison  of  the  two  offices  proves,  in  one  respect  at  any 
rate,  favourable  to  the  former ;  for  whereas  it  has  been  said 
that  the  Premier  "  can  do  nothing  right,"  the  Speaker  can  do 
no  wrong.  He  may  indeed  be  considered  to  enjoy  in  the 
House  the  prerogative  which  the  sovereign  is  supposed  to 
possess  in  the  country.  But  it  is  not  upon  his  presumable 
infallibility  that  the  occupant  of  the  Chair  relies  to-day  for 
the  unquestioned  honour  and  dignity  of  his  position.  It  is 
rather  to  the  reputation  for  absolute  integrity  with  which,  for 
close  upon  a  hundred  years,  each  Speaker  in  turn  has  been 
justly  credited,  that  he  owes  the  tribute  of  esteem  and 
respect,  almost  amounting  to  awe,  which  is  nowadays  rightly 
regarded  as  his  due.  The  reverence  he  now  inspires  is  the 
product  of  many  Parliaments  ;  his  present  state  is  the  gradual 
growth  of  ages. 

From  very  early  days,  when  the  two  Houses  began  to  sit 
apart,  the  Commons  must  probably  have  always  possessed  an 
official  who,  in  some  measure,  corresponded  to  the  modern 
idea  of  a  Speaker.  And  though  Sir  Thomas  Hungerford, 
elected  to  the  Chair  in  1377,  was  the  first  upon  whom  that 
actual  designation  was  bestowed,  the  Lower  House  un- 
doubtedly   employed    the    services    of   a    spokesman  —  or 

119 


I20  THE  MOTHER   OF   PARLIAMENTS 

"  pourparlour,"  as  he  was  then  called — at  an  even  earlier 
date.i 

The  name  "  Speaker  "  is  perhaps  a  misleading  one,  since 
speaking  must  be  numbered  among  the  least  important  of 
the  many  duties  that  centre  round  the  Chair,  though  in 
bygone  days  it  was  customary  for  a  Speaker  to  "  sum  up  " 
at  the  close  of  the  proceedings.  Grattan's  landlady  used 
to  complain  feelingly  that  it  was  a  sad  thing  to  see  her 
misguided  young  lodger  rehearsing  his  speeches  in  his  bed- 
room, and  talking  half  the  night  to  some  one  whom  he  called 
"  Mr.  Speaker,"  when  there  was  no  speaker  present  but 
himself.^  It  is,  however,  as  the  mouthpiece  of  the  Commons, 
as  one  who  speaks  for,  and  not  to,  his  fellow-members,  and 
was  long  the  only  channel  through  which  the  Commons  could 
express  their  views  to  the  Crown,  that  the  Speaker  earns  his 
title. 

The  Speaker  may  well  be  called  the  autocrat  of  the  House  ; 
his  word  there  is  law,  his  judgment  is  unquestioned,  his  very 
presence  is  evocative  of  a  peculiar  deference.  He  is  at  the 
same  time  the  servant  of  the  House,  and,  in  the  memorable 
words  which  Speaker  Lcnthall  addressed  to  Charles  I.,  has 
"  neither  eyes  to  see  nor  tongue  to  speak  but  as  the  House 
is  pleased  to  direct."  It  is  upon  the  good  pleasure  of  the 
Commons  that  his  power  is  based ;  by  their  authority  alone 
he  rules  supreme. 

The  prestige  which  nowadays  attaches  to  the  office  has 
been  slowly  evolved  on  parallel  lines  with  the  gradual  public 
recognition  of  the  necessary  impartiality  of  the  Chair.  In 
proportion  as  the  Speaker  became  fair  minded,  the  strength 
of  his  position  was  enhanced,  until  to-day  the  occupant  of  the 
Chair  is  as  powerful  as  he  is  impartial. 

That  there  was  a  time  when  he  could  not  justly  be  accused 

'  Hakewell  gives  a  list  of  Hungerford's  predecessors  in  the  Chair, 
which  includes  Sir  Peter  de  la  Mare,  commissioned  by  Parliament  to 
rebuke  Edward  1 1 1 .  for  his  misconduct  with  Alice  Perrers,  and  imprisoned 
for  so  doing. 

-  Phillips's  "  Curran  and  his  Contemporaries,"  p.  88. 


THE  SPEAKER  121 

of  being  either  the  one  or  the  other  is  a  matter  of  history. 
Speakers  in  the  past  displayed  little  of  the  dignity  and  none 
of  the  fairness  to  which  their  successors  have  now  for  so  many 
generations  accustomed  us.  They  were  frequently  subjected 
to  intentional  disrespect  on  the  part  of  the  unruly  members 
of  that  assembly  over  which  it  was  their  duty  to  preside.  In 
the  early  Journals  of  the  House,  for  instance,  we  find  a 
Speaker  complaining  that  a  member  had  "  put  out  his  tongue, 
and  popped  his  mouth  with  his  finger,  in  scorn,"  at  him.^ 
And  the  worthy  Lenthall  himself  was  much  upset  on  one 
occasion  when  a  member  came  softly  up  behind  him,  as  he 
was  engaged  in  putting  a  question  to  the  vote,  and  shouted 
"  Baugh  ! "  in  his  ear,  "  to  his  great  terror  and  affrightment."  ^ 
Even  as  recently  as  in  the  reign  of  George  HI.  the  parlia- 
mentary debates  were  marked  by  perpetual  altercations  of  an 
undignified  and  acrimonious  description  between  the  members 
and  the  Chair. 

That  such  things  would  be  impossible  nowadays  is  the 
result  not  so  much  of  an  improvement  in  the  manners  of  the 
House — though  that  may  have  something  to  do  with  it — as 
in  the  complete  change  which  has  taken  place  in  the  character 
of  its  Chairman. 

Up  to  the  end  of  the  seventeenth  century  the  Chair  was 
to  all  intents  and  purposes  in  the  gift  of  the  Crown  :  its 
occupant  was  a  mere  creature  of  the  reigning  sovereign.  *'  It 
is  true,"  wrote  Sir  Edward  Coke,  in  1648,  "that  the  Commons 
are  to  chuse  their  Speaker,  but  seeing  that  after  their  choice 
the  king  may  refuse  him,  for  avoiding  of  expense  of  time  and 
contestation,  the  use  is  that  the  king  doth  name  a  discreet 
and  learned  man  whom  the  Commons  elect."  ^  The  Speaker 
was,  indeed,  nothing  more  nor  less  than  the  parliamentary 
representative  of  the  King,  from  whom  he  received  salaried 
oflice  and  other  material  marks  of  the  royal  favour. 

'  July  16,  1610. 

"^  Palgrave's  "  House  of  Commons,"  p.  51. 

^  "The  Institutes  of  the  Laws  of  England,"  fourth  part  (1648), 
p.  8. 


122  THE   MOTHER   OF   PARLIAMENTS 

In  Stuart  days  the  Commons  had  grown  so  jealous  of  the 
influence  of  the  Crown,  and  found  the  Speaker's  spying 
presence  so  distasteful,  that  they  often  referred  important 
measures  to  Giant  Committees  of  which  they  could  themselves 
elect  less  partial  chairmen.  That  they  were  justified  in  their 
fears  is  beyond  doubt.  In  1629,  for  example.  Speaker  Finch, 
who  was  a  paid  servant  of  King  Charles,  declined  to  put  to 
the  House  a  certain  question  of  which  he  had  reason  to 
believe  that  His  Majesty  disapproved.  Again  and  again  he 
was  urged  to  do  his  duty,  but  tremblingly  refused,  saying 
that  he  dared  not  disobey  the  King.  On  being  still  further 
pressed,  the  timorous  Finch  burst  into  tears,  and  would  have 
left  the  Chair  had  not  some  of  the  younger  and  more  hot- 
headed members  seized  and  held  him  forcibly  in  his  seat, 
declaring  that  he  should  remain  there  until  it  pleased  the 
House  to  rise.^ 

Even  in  the  days  of  the  Commonwealth,  the  choice  of 
a  Chairman  was  not  left  entirely  to  the  independent  will 
of  the  Commons,  and  Lcnthall,  himself  the  first  Speaker 
to  treat  the  Crown  with  open  defiance,  owed  his  election  to 
the  urgent  recommendation  of  Cromwell. 

The  Chair  did  not  altogether  succeed  in  clearing  itself  of 
Court  influence  until  the  close  of  the  seventeenth  century, 
when  the  memorable  and  decisive  conflict  between  the  Crown 
and  the  Commons  took  place  over  the  Speakership.  The 
refusal  of  Charles  II.,  in  167S-9,  to  approve  of  Sir  Edward 
Seymour,  the  Commons'  choice,  aroused  the  most  intense 
resentment  in  the  breast  of  every  member  of  the  House,  and 
was  the  subject  of  many  heated  debates.    Though  the  popular 

*  Carlyle's  "  Letters  and  Speeches  of  Oliver  Cromwell,"  vol.  i.  p.  88. 
Until  comparatively  recently  it  was  not  permissible  for  a  Speaker  to 
leave  the  Chair  until,  at  the  instigation  of  some  member,  the  motion 
"that  this  House  do  now  adjourn  "  had  been  put.  In  this  connexion  a 
pathetic  story  is  told  of  Speaker  Denison.  On  one  occasion  the  House 
broke  up  rather  hurriedly,  and  the  necessary  formula  for  releasing  the 
Speaker  was  forgotten.  He  was  consequently  compelled  to  remain  a 
lonely  prisoner  in  the  Chair  until  some  good-natured  member  could  be 
brought  back  to  set  him  free. 


THE   SPEAKER  123 

assembly  had  eventually  to  bow  to  the  royal  will,  the  election 
of  the  King's  original  candidate  was  not  pressed,  and  the 
Commons  may  be  said  to  have  gained  a  moral  victory.  From 
that  day  to  this  no  sovereign  has  interfered  in  the  election  of 
a  Speaker,  nor  since  then  has  the  Chair  ever  been  filled  by  a 
royal  nominee. 

As  a  result  of  this  great  constitutional  struggle  between 
King  and  Parliament,  the  Speaker  gained  complete  inde- 
pendence of  the  royal  will,  but  he  had  still  to  acquire  that 
independence  of  Party  to  which  he  did  not  practically  attain 
until  after  the  Reform  Act  of  1832. 

From  being  the  creature  of  the  Crown,  the  Speaker 
developed  into  the  slave  of  the  Ministry,  thus  merely  ex- 
changing one  form  of  servitude  for  another.  He  was  an  active 
partisan,  and,  in  some  instances,  openly  amenable  to  corrup- 
tion. Sir  John  Trevor,  the  first  Speaker  to  whom  was  given 
(by  a  statute  of  William  HI.)  the  title  of  "first  Commoner  of 
the  realm,"  an  able  but  unscrupulous  man  who  began  life 
in  humble  circumstances  as  a  lawyer's  clerk,  was  actually 
found  guilty  of  receiving  bribes,  and  forced  to  pronounce  his 
own  sentence.  "  Resolved,"  he  read  from  the  Chair  on 
March  12,  1695,  "  that  Sir  John  Trevor,  Speaker  of  this  House, 
for  receiving  a  gratuity  of  1000  guineas  from  the  City  of 
London,  after  the  passing  of  the  Orphans  Bill,  is  guilty  of  a 
high  crime  and  misdemeanour."  This  resolution  was  carried 
unanimously,  and  on  the  following  day,  when  Sir  John  should 
have  been  in  his  place  to  put  to  the  vote  the  question  of  his 
own  expulsion,  he  wisely  feigned  sickness,  and  was  never 
more  seen  within  the  precincts  of  the  House.^ 

^  After  his  dismissal  from  the  House  of  Commons,  Sir  John  Trevor 
lived  quietly  at  home  and  amassed  money.  His  miserly  habits  became 
notorious.  Once  when  he  was  dining  alone  and  drinking  a  bottle  of 
wine,  a  cousin  was  introduced  by  a  side  door.  "  You  rascal,"  said  Trevor 
to  his  servant  ;  "  how  dare  you  bring  this  gentleman  up  the  back  stairs  ? 
Take  him  instantly  down  the  back  stairs  and  bring  him  up  the  front 
stairs  ! "  In  vain  did  the  cousin  remonstrate.  While  he  was  being 
ceremoniously  conveyed  down  one  staircase  and  up  the  other  his  host 
cleared  the  dinner  table,  and  he  returned  to  find  the  bottles  and  glasses 
replaced  by  books  and  papers.  Campbell's  "  Lives  of  the  Chancellors,'' 
vol.  v.  pp.  59-60. 


124  THE   MOTHER   OF   PARLIAMENTS 

Arthur  Onslow,  who  was  elected  to  the  Chair  in  1727,  and 
filled  it  with  distinction  for  three  and  thirty  years,  has  been 
called  "the  greatest  Speaker  of  the  century,"  and  was  the 
first  to  realise  the  absolute  necessity  for  impartiality.  So 
determined  was  he  to  ensure  himself  against  any  possible 
suspicion  of  bias  that  he  insisted  upon  sacrificing  that  portion 
of  his  official  salary  which  was  customarily  paid  by  the 
Government. 

Excellent  though  such  an  example  must  have  been,  it 
was  many  years  after  Onslow's  retirement  before  his  suc- 
cessors ceased  to  display  a  partisan  spirit  wholly  incompatible 
with  the  dignity  of  their  office.  Speaker  Grenville  threatened 
to  leave  the  Chair  because  the  Ministry  of  the  day  refused 
to  accelerate  the  promotion  of  a  military  relative  of  his  ; 
Addington  frequently  overlooked  trifling  breaches  of  the 
rules  of  procedure  committed  by  his  political  chief  and  crony, 
Pitt  ;  Abbot  contrived  that  the  scheme  for  the  threatened 
impeachment  of  Lord  Wellesley  should  prove  abortive.  It 
was  the  last-named  Speaker,  however,  who  unwittingly  brought 
to  a  head  the  question  of  the  impartiality  of  the  Chair,  and 
thereby  settled  it  once  and  for  all. 

On  July  22,  1 813,  at  the  prorogation  of  Parliament, 
Speaker  Abbot  took  it  upon  himself  to  deliver  at  the  bar  of 
the  House  of  Lords  a  lengthy  party  harangue  on  the  subject 
of  Catholic  emancipation.  This  frank  exposition  of  his 
private  political  views  roused  the  indignation  of  the  Commons, 
who  took  an  early  opportunity  of  expressing  their  dis- 
approval of  his  conduct.  Not  even  his  friends  could  condone 
Abbot's  action,  and  in  April  of  the  following  year  a  reso- 
lution was  moved  in  the  Commons  gravely  censuring  him  for 
his  behaviour  on  this  occasion.  For  several  hours  he  was 
forced  to  listen  to  criticisms  and  abuse  from  both  sides  of  the 
House,  and  though,  as  a  matter  of  policy,  the  resolution  was 
not  carried,  the  Commons  in  the  course  of  this  debate  proved 
beyond  doubt  their  determination  to  secure  the  impartiality 
of  their  Chairman. 

That  they  succeeded  in  accomplishing  their  purpose  may 


CHARLES  ABBOT  (LORD  COLCHESTER) 

FROM    THE    I'AINTING    HV   JOHN    HOPPNER,    R.A.,    IN    THE    NATIONAL    PORTRAIT   GALLERY 


THE   SPEAKER  125 

be  gauged  from  the  conduct  and  character  of  Abbot's  suc- 
cessors. So  divorced  from  all  political  prejudice  is  the 
modern  Speaker,  that  he  does  not  deem  it  consistent  with  his 
position  to  enter  the  portals  of  any  political  club  of  which  he 
may  happen  to  be  a  member.  Even  at  a  General  Election 
he  steers  as  widely  clear  of  politics  as  possible.  It  is  not, 
indeed,  usual  for  his  candidature  to  be  opposed  at  such  a 
time — though  an  exception  was  made  as  recently  as  1895, 
when  Speaker  Gully  was  forced  to  contest  Carlisle — and 
though  he  may  appeal  in  writing  to  his  constituents,  he 
is  not  supposed  to  touch,  in  his  election  address,  upon  any 
political  questions. 

The  duties  of  a  Speaker  may  be  summarized  in  a  few 
words.  As  the  representative  of  the  House  he  alone  of  the 
Commons  is  privileged  to  communicate  direct  with  the  Crown, 
either  as  the  personal  bearer  of  an  address,  or  at  the  bar  of 
the  House  of  Lords  when  the  sovereign  is  present.^  As  the 
mouthpiece  of  the  House  he  delivers  on  its  behalf  addresses 
of  thanks  to  whomever  Parliament  delights  to  honour  ;  he 
censures  those  who  have  incurred  its  displeasure.  In  his 
hands  lies  the  issuing  of  writs  to  fill  parliamentary  vacancies  ; 
he  alone  can  summon  witnesses  or  prisoners  to  the  bar  of 
the  House,  or  commit  to  prison  those  persons  who  have 
offended  against  its  privileges.  His  powers  have  been 
greatly  increased  of  late  years  by  the  discretion  committed 
to  him  under  various  Standing  Orders  of  accepting  or 
refusing  motions  for  the  closure  of  debate.  It  is,  besides, 
a  part  of  the  daily  routine  of  the  Chair  to  put  questions  to 
the  vote,  to  declare  the  decision  of  the  House,  and,  finally, 
to  maintain  order  in  debate. 

Successfully  to  accomplish  the  last-named  duty  is  a 
matter  that  requires  all  that  a  man  has  of  tact,  strength  of 
character,   and   promptness   of  judgment.     It   is,  above  all 

^  Sir  Arnold  Savage,  Speaker  in  Henry  VI.'s  time,  was  so  voluble, 
and  addressed  the  King  so  often,  and  at  such  length,  that  the  latter's 
patience  became  exhausted,  and  he  asked  that  all  requests  from  the 
Commons  might  hereafter  be  addressed  to  him  in  writing. 


126  THE   MOTHER   OF   PARLIAMENTS 

things,  necessary  that  by  his  personal  integrity  he  should 
gain  the  confidence  of  the  House,  so  that  a  willing  acquies- 
cence, and  not  a  reluctant  submission,  may  be  given  to  the 
force  of  his  decisions.  He  must,  as  Sir  Robert  Peel  declared, 
have  a  mind  capable  of  taking  the  widest  view  of  political 
events,  but  at  the  same  time  able  "  to  descend  to  the  dis- 
cussion of  some  insulated  principle,  to  the  investigation  of 
some  trifling  point  of  order,  some  almost  obsolete  form,  or 
some  nearly  forgotten  privilege."  ^ 

Ever  ready  to  quell  turbulence  with  a  firm  hand,  he  must 
yet  display  an  habitual  urbanity  of  manner  calculated  to 
soothe  the  nerves  of  an  irritable  or  excited  assembly.  He 
must  make  up  his  mind  calmly  and  dispassionately,  but  on 
the  spur  of  the  moment,  and,  once  his  judgment  is  formed, 
adhere  to  it  inflexibly.  Difficult  questions  arise  for  his 
decision  with  startling  rapidity ;  intricate  points  of  order 
loom  suddenly  forth  from  a  clear  sky  ;  and  any  show  of 
vacillation  would  tend  very  materially  to  weaken  the  Speaker's 
authority. 

When  a  member  uses  unparliamentary  language,  or  makes 
a  personal  attack  upon  an  opponent,  the  Speaker  must 
summon  his  most  persuasive  powers  to  induce  the  culprit  to 
withdraw  the  offensive  words.  At  a  moment's  notice  he  has 
to  decide  a  matter  between  two  eminent  debaters,  who  would 
be  little  likely  to  consult  him  on  any  private  occasion,  and 
give  satisfaction  to  both.  To  a  perpetual  serenity,  as  a  member 
once  said  in  describing  the  Speaker's  office,  he  must  add 
"a  firmness  of  mind  as  may  enable  him  to  repress  petulance 
and  subdue  contumacy,  and  support  the  orders  of  the  House, 
in  whatever  contrariety  of  counsels,  or  commotion  of  debate, 
against  all  attempts  at  infraction  or  deviation."  ^ 

To  sum  up,  then,  it  may  be  urged  that  a  Speaker  should 
combine  intellectual  abih'ty  with  those  qualities  of  character 
which  are  the  mark  of  what  is  called  a  "  gentleman  " — a  term 
that  has,  perhaps,  seldom  been  more  aptly  defined  than  in  a 

1  In  1818,  on  the  election  of  Manners  Sutton. 

-  Dr.  Johnson's  "  Debates  in  Parliament,"  vol  ii.  p.  2. 


THE   SPEAKER  127 

speech  in  which  Lord  John  Cavendish  recommended  the 
claims  of  a  candidate  to  fill  the  chair  vacated  by  the  death  of 
Sir  John  Cust  in  1770.^ 

The  physical  qualifications  necessary  for  the  Speakership 
include  a  clear,  resonant  voice  and  a  commanding  presence. 
A  little  man  with  a  flute-like  falsetto  might  be  endowed  with 
the  wisdom  of  Solomon  and  the  virtue  of  Caesar's  wife,  and 
yet  fail  to  claim  the  respect  of  the  House,  even  though  he 
contrived  to  render  audible  his  shrill  cries  of  "  Order ! " 
When  Sergeant  Yelverton  was  elected  to  the  Chair  in  1597, 
he  declared  that  a  Speaker  ought  to  be  "a  man  big  and 
comely,  stately  and  well  spoken,  his  voice  great,  his  carriage 
majestical,  his  nature  haughty,  and  his  purse  plentiful,"  ^  and, 
with  the  omission  of  the  last  qualification,  now  no  longer 
necessary,  the  same  may  truly  be  said  to-day. 

The  enjoyment  of  perfect  health  might  also  be  added  to 
this  list,  since  only  the  most  robust  constitution  can  support 
the  strain  of  labours  which  were  always  arduous,  and,  with  the 
rapid  increase  of  business  and  the  prolongation  of  each  suc- 
ceeding session,  grow  annually  more  onerous. 

Hour  after  hour  does  the  Speaker  sit  in  the  splendid 
isolation  of  the  Chair,  listening  to  interminable  speeches,  of 
which  no  small  proportion  are  insupportably  wearisome. 

*  Of  his  nominee  for  the  Speakership  Lord  John  declared  that  he  had 
"parts,  temper,  and  constitution."  "And  he  has,"  he  added,  "besides 
the  principle  of  common  honesty,  which  would  prevent  him  from  doing 
wrong,  a  principle  of  nice  honour,  which  will  always  urge  him  to  do 
right.  By  honour  I  do  not  mean  a  fashionable  mistaken  principle,  which 
would  only  lead  a  man  to  court  popular  reputation,  and  avoid  popular 
disgrace,  whether  the  opinion  on  which  they  are  founded  is  false  or  true  ; 
whether  the  conduct  which  they  require  is  in  itself  just  or  unjust,  or  its 
consequences  hurtful  or  beneficial  to  mankind.  I  mean  a  quality  which 
is  not  satisfied  with  doing  right,  when  it  is  merely  the  alternative  of  doing 
wrong,  which  prompts  a  man  to  do  what  he  might  lawfully  and  honestly 
leave  undone  ;  which  distinguishes  a  thousand  different  shades  in  what 
is  generally  denominated  the  same  colour,  and  is  as  much  superior  to  a 
mere  conformity  to  prescribed  rules  as  forgiving  a  debt  is  to  paying  what 
we  owe."     "  Parliamentary  History,"  vol.  xvi.  p.  737. 

-  D'Ewes'  "  Journal,"  p.  449. 


128  THE   MOTHER  OF  PARLIAMENTS 

"  Like  sad  Prometheus,  fastened  to  his  rock, 
In  vain  he  looks  for  pity  to  the  clock  ; 
While,  vulture-like,  the  dire  [M.P.]  appears, 
And,  far  more  savage,  rends  his  suff'ring  ears."  * 

He  may  not  rest,  though  the  cooing  of  Ministers  on  the 
immemorial  front  bench,  and  the  murmur  of  innumerable 
M.P.'s,  must  often  threaten  to  reduce  the  hapless  listener  to  a 
condition  bordering  upon  coma.  He  must  pay  the  strictest 
attention  to  every  pearl  that  falls  from  the  lips  of  "  honour- 
able gentlemen,"  many  of  whom  delight  to  air  their  vocabu- 
lary at  an  unconscionable  length,  and,  like  Dryden's  Shadwell, 
"  never  deviate  into  sense."  He  must  be  ever  ready  to  check 
irrelevancy,  to  avert  personalities,  to  guide  some  discursive 
speaker  back  to  the  point  at  issue  ;  nor  is  he  upheld  by  the 
stimulus  of  interest  which  might  possibly  be  his  could  he  look 
forward  to  replying  to  the  member  who  is  addressing  the 
House. 

For  the  last  hundred  years  it  has  been  considered  un- 
dignified for  the  Speaker  to  take  any  personal  part  in  debate, 
even  when  the  House  is  in  Committee,  though  Speaker 
Denison  once  broke  this  rule,  and  made  a  long  speech  upon 
some  agricultural  question.  Speaker  Abbot  often  spoke  in 
Committee,  and  once  actually  moved  an  amendment  to  a 
Bill  which  had  been  read  a  second  time,  and  succeeded  in 
getting  it  thrown  out.  At  a  still  earlier  date,  in  1780,  we 
read  of  Sir  Fletcher  Norton  inveighing  vehemently  against 
the  influence  of  the  Crown,  and  making  a  violent  attack  upon 
Lord  North  which  resulted  in  what  Walpole  calls  "  a  strange 
scene  of  Billingsgate  between  the  Speaker  and  the  Minister."  ^ 
But  though  Speaker  Norton,  who  was  reputed  to  be  the 
worst-tempered  man  in  the  House,  could  thus  relieve  his 
pent-up  feelings  in  occasional  bursts  of  eloquence,  he  took  no 
pains  to  conceal  his  boredom,  and  during  the  course  of  a 

'  "  The  Rolliad." 

"^  Horace  Walpole's  "Letters,"  vol.  vii.  p.  340.  (This  Speaker's 
criticism  of  the  royal  expenditure  on  a  later  occasion  roused  the  animosity 
of  George  IIL,  and  cost  him  the  loss  of  the  Chair.) 


THE   SPEAKER  129 

particularly  tedious  debate  would  often  cry  aloud,  "  I  am 
tired  !  I  am  weary !  I  am  heartily  sick  of  all  this  !  "  * 
Speaker  Denison,  even,  on  one  occasion,  at  the  end  of  a  pro- 
tracted session,  grew  so  anxious  for  release  that  when  a 
tiresome  orator  rose  to  continue  the  debate  he  could  not 
refrain  from  joining  in  the  members'  general  chorus  of 
"  Oh  !  oh  !  " 

As  a  rule,  however,  modern  Speakers  seem  able  to 
exercise  complete  self-control,  and,  bored  though  they  must 
often  be,  are  polite  enough  to  hide  the  fact.  They  cannot  now 
have  recourse  to  that  flowing  bowl  of  porter  which  Speaker 
Cornwall  kept  by  the  side  of  the  Chair,  from  which  he  drank 
whenever  he  felt  the  need  of  a  mental  fillip,  subsequently 
falling  into  a  pleasing  torpor  which  the  babble  of  debate  did 
nothing  to  dispel.  To-day,  indeed,  the  Speaker  neither 
slumbers  nor  sleeps,  and  the  advice  given  by  the  poet  Praed 
to  the  occupant  of  the  Chair  during  one  of  the  debates  of  the 
first  reformed  Parliament  would  fall  on  deaf  ears. 

*'  Sleep,  Mr.  Speaker  ;  it's  surely  fair, 
If  you  don't  in  your  bed,  that  you  should  in  your  chair  ; 
Longer  and  longer  still  they  grow, 
Tory  and  Radical,  Aye  and  No  ; 
Talking  by  night,  and  talking  by  day  ; 
Sleep,  Mr.  Speaker,  sleep,  sleep  while  you  may  ! 

*'  Sleep,  Mr.  Speaker  ;  sweet  to  men 
Is  the  sleep  that  comes  but  now  and  then  ; 
Sweet  to  the  sorrowful,  sweet  to  the  ill, 
Sweet  to  the  children  who  work  in  a  mill. 
You  have  more  need  of  sleep  than  they  ; 
Sleep,  Mr.  Speaker  ;  sleep,  sleep  while  you  may  !  " 

It  is  very  necessary  for  the  proper  performance  of  his 
duties  that  a  Speaker  should  possess  good  eyesight,  and  a 
memory  exceptionally  retentive  of  names  and  faces.  In 
1640,  when  a  heated  dispute  rose  between  members  of  the 
House,  several  of  whom  claimed  precedence  of  speech,  a 
rule  was  made  that  whoever  first  "  caught  the  Speaker's  eye  " 

•  May's  "  Constitutional  History,"  vol.  i.  p.  503  n. 


130  THE   MOTHER   OF   PARLIAMENTS 

should  have  the  right  to  address  the  House.^  This  rule  still 
holds  good.  Much  confusion  may  therefore  arise  if  the 
Speaker  happens  to  suffer  from  obliquity  of  vision.  Sir  John 
Trevor  squinted  abominably ;  consequently  two  members 
would  often  catch  his  eye  simultaneously,  and  decline  to  give 
way  to  one  another.^  To  obviate  this,  a  further  rule  was 
framed  to  the  effect  that  the  Speaker  should  call  by  name 
upon  the  member  privileged  to  address  the  House — a  rule 
which  must  often  prove  a  severe  tax  upon  a  Speaker's 
memory. 

In  former  days,  when  there  was  any  doubt  as  to  who 
should  speak,  the  matter  was  referred  to  the  House,  as  is 
still  the  practice  of  the  House  of  Lords,  Nowadays  it  is 
settled  by  the  Speaker,  It  is  the  usual  practice  of  the  Chair 
to  fix  an  alternate  eye  upon  either  side  of  the  House,  and 
thus  provide  both  parties  with  equal  opportunities  of  speech. 

The  tension  of  this  perpetual  strain  upon  a  Speaker's 
nerves  is  not  altogether  relieved  when  he  quits  the  Chair. 
As  long  as  the  House  is  sitting  it  is  obligatory  upon  him  to 
remain  within  the  precincts  of  the  building,  close  at  hand, 
lest  the  proceedings  in  Committee  of  the  whole  House  come 
to  an  end,  and  the  House  be  resumed,  or  in  case  a  sudden 
emergency  should  arise  to  demand  his  immediate  presence. 
And  well  it  is  that  this  should  be  so.  Who  that  was  present 
on  that  painful  occasion  in  the  summer  of  1893,  when  for 
once  the  decencies  of  debate  were  violated,  and  the  House 
degenerated  into  a  bear-garden,  can  have  forgotten  the  effect 
of  Mr,  Speaker  Peel's  sudden  advent  upon  the  scene  ? 

Mr,  Chamberlain  had  drawn  a  comparison  between  Herod 
and  Mr.  Gladstone,  A  Nationalist  member  retaliated  by 
shouting    "  Judas  ! "  at  the  member  for  West  Birmingham. 

*  "  People  say,  when  you  get  on  the  blind  side  of  a  man,  you  get  into 
his  favour ;  but  it  is  quite  the  reverse  with  the  members  when  they  get 
on  the  blind  side  of  the  Speaker,"  Pearson's  "  Political  Dictionary," 
P-53- 

^  When  Trevor  was  Master  of  the  Rolls,  a  post  he  combined  with  that 
of  Speaker,  it  was  said  that  if  Justice  were  blind,  Equity  was  now  seen  to 
squint  ! 


THE   SPEAKER  131 

In  vain  did  a  weak  Chairman  seek  to  restore  order,  and  when 
a  Radical  member  crossed  the  floor  and  sat  down  in  the 
accustomed  seat  of  the  Leader  of  the  Opposition,  he  was  at 
once  pushed  on  to  the  floor  by  an  indignant  Unionist.  This 
was  the  signal  for  an  impulsive  group  of  Nationalists  to 
detach  itself  from  the  main  body  of  the  Irish  party,  and  rush 
towards  the  front  Opposition  bench.  In  a  moment  the 
House  was  in  an  uproar.  It  is  not  known  who  struck  the 
first  blow,  but  before  many  moments  had  elapsed  the  floor  of 
the  Commons  was  the  arena  of  a  hand-to-hand  struggle 
between  hysterical  politicians  of  all  parties,  while  from  the 
Government  bench  Mr.  Gladstone  watched  this  tumultuous 
scene  with  all  the  bitter  emotions  of  one  to  whom  the  honour 
of  the  House  was  especially  dear. 

Meanwhile  the  Speaker  had  been  sent  for,  and  in  an 
incredibly  short  space  of  time  appeared  upon  the  scene.  With 
his  advent  hostilities  ceased  as  suddenly  as  they  had  begun. 
The  storm  died  away ;  passion  quailed  before  "  the  silent 
splendid  anger  of  his  eyes."  In  the  breasts  in  which  but  a 
moment  ago  fury  had  been  seething  there  was  now  room  for 
no  feelings  save  those  of  shame. 

The  authority  of  the  Chair  is  no  doubt  enhanced  by  the 
distinctive  dress  which  a  modern  Speaker  wears.  The  flow- 
ing wig  and  full  robes  have  an  important  use.  Mankind  pays 
an  involuntary  homage  to  the  pomp  and  circumstance  of  such 
attire.  Perhaps  it  was  because  Lenthall  possessed  no  peculiar 
costume  to  distinguish  him  from  his  fellows,  but  wore  the 
short  grey  cloak  and  peaked  hat  of  the  Puritan,  that  he  was 
subjected  to  the  humiliation  of  having  "  Baugh  !  "  shouted  in 
his  astonished  ear.  Indeed,  were  a  modern  Speaker  dressed  "  in 
smart  buckskin  breeches,  with  well-topped  boots,  a  buff  waist- 
coat and  blue  frock-coat,  with  a  rosebud  stuck  in  the  button- 
hole," as  a  Parliamentary  writer  of  the  last  century  suggested, 
"  he  might  roar  to  the  crack  of  his  voice  before  he  would  be 
able  to  command  order  in  a  tempestuous  debate."  ^ 

During  the  first  four  centuries  of  Parliament  the  Speaker 

*  Barnes's  "  Political  Portraits,"  p.  218. 


132  THE   MOTHER   OF  PARLIAMENTS 

received  no  regular  salary  adequate  to  his  needs.  In  1673, 
Sir  Edward  Seymour  was  paid  £^  a  day,  and  relied  for  the 
remainder  of  his  income  upon  the  fees  on  private  bills  which 
accompanied  the  office.  Other  Speakers  in  the  past  were 
remunerated  by  the  gift  of  Government  appointments  or  sine- 
cures conferred  upon  them  by  the  Crown.  This  casual  system 
was  put  a  stop  to  in  1790,  when  a  fixed  salary  was  first  paid 
by  the  House  to  its  chief  officer. 

For  the  next  fifty  years  the  Speaker  could  also  claim 
valuable  perquisites  in  the  shape  of  equipment  money,  amount- 
ing to  ;^iooo,  at  the  commencement  of  each  new  Parliament, 
a  service  of  plate  (valued  at  about  the  same  sum),  and  a 
sessional  allowance  of  ;i{J^ioo  for  stationery.  He  was  also  per- 
mitted to  carry  the  Chair  away  with  him  at  the  end  of  every 
Parliament,  and  Speaker  Onslow  is  said  to  have  thus  acquired 
five  of  these  bulky  pieces  of  furniture,  the  disposal  of  which 
in  his  private  residence  must  have  afforded  him  a  perplexing 
problem.^ 

The  Speaker  also  received  a  gift  of  wine  and  a  Christmas 
present  of  broadcloth  from  the  Clothworkers'  Company  ;  and, 
as  a  buck  and  doe  were  sent  to  him  annually  from  the  Royal 
Park  at  Windsor,  had  probably  more  opportunities  of  burying 
venison  than  any  of  his  contemporaries.  The  ;£^iooo  equip- 
ment money  is  still  provided,  and  a  service  of  plate,  while  an 
adequate  supply  of  stationery  is  substituted  for  the  allowance. 

As  "  First  Commoner  "  the  Speaker  takes  precedence  of 
all  others,  and  among  his  many  honorary  dignities  is  the 
Trusteeship  of  the  British  Museum,  to  which  all  Speakers, 
since  and  including  Arthur  Onslow,  have  been  appointed. 
His  present  salary  amounts  to  ;^  5000  a  year,  and  he  is  also 
provided  with  an  official  residence  in  the  Palace  of  West- 
minster, exempt  from  the  payment  of  all  rates  and  taxes. 

Out  of  this  income  he  is  expected  to  entertain,  and  invita- 
tions to  the  "  Speaker's  Dinners "  have  come  to  be  looked 

'  None  of  these  chairs  is  to  be  found  at  Clandon,  nor  has  the  Onslow 
family  any  record  of  their  existence,  so  perhaps  the  story  of  this  particular 
perquisite  is  nothing  but  a  legend  and  a  myth. 


THE  SPEAKER  133 

upon  as  one  of  the  minor  delights  of  membership.  During 
the  eighteenth  century  the  Speaker  was  in  the  habit  of  giving 
evening  parties  and  official  dinners  on  the  Saturdays  and 
Sundays  of  the  session.^  Speaker  Abbot,  in  his  Diary, 
describes  one  of  these  dinners  at  which  twenty  guests  were 
entertained.  "  The  style  of  the  dinner  was  soup  at  the  top 
and  bottom,  changed  for  fish,  and  afterwards  changed  for 
roast  saddle  of  mutton  and  roast  loin  of  veal."  The  wine 
was  champagne.  Hock,  Hermitage,  and  (which  sounds  un- 
pleasant) iced  Burgundy.^  His  successors  have  always  con- 
tinued the  practice  of  holding  regular  weekly  entertainments 
of  a  social  character,  at  which  the  members  attend  in  levee 
dress,  and  it  is  doubtful  whether  any  guest  to-day  would 
follow  the  example  of  Cobbett,  who  declined  an  invitation  to 
dine  with  Speaker  Manners  Sutton  on  the  grounds  that  he 
was  "not  accustomed  to  the  society  of  gentlemen." ^ 

In  old  days,  as  we  have  seen,  the  Speakership  was  often 
a  stepping-stone  to  some  higher  appointment.  Sir  Thomas 
More,  "  the  first  English  gentleman  who  signalized  himself  as 
an  orator  ;  the  first  writer  of  prose  (as  Townsend  calls  him) 
which  is  still  intelligible  "  * — whatever  that  may  mean — was 
also  the  first  lay  Chancellor  of  England.  It  was  not  con- 
sidered strange  for  the  Speaker  to  hold  some  ministerial 
appointment  both  while  he  sat  in  the  Chair  and  after  his 
retirement.  Sir  Edward  Coke  was  Solicitor-General  as  well  as 
Speaker  ;  Harley  occupied  the  office  of  Secretary  of  State 
and  the  Chair  simultaneously.  Spencer  Compton  was  Pay- 
master-General as  well  as  Speaker,  and,  as  Lord  Wilmington, 
became  Prime  Minister  in  1742.  Nor  was  he  the  only 
Speaker  to  exchange  the  Chair  for  the  Premiership.  Adding- 
ton  succeeded  Pitt  in  that  office  in  iSoi  ;  Grenville  became 
Prime  Minister  in  the  Government  of  "  All  the  Talents," 
five  years  later ;  and  Manners  Sutton  is  said  to  have  been 

1  Pellew's  "  Life  of  Sidmouth,"  vol.  i.  p.  368. 
'•^  "  Diary  of  Lord  Colchester,"  February  2,  1796. 
^  Dalling's  "Historical  Characters,"  vol.  ii.  p.  181. 
^  Townsend's  "  History  of  the  House  of  Commons." 


134  THE  MOTHER   OF   PARLIAMENTS 

urged  by  the  Duke  of  Wellington  to  form  a  Ministry  in 
1831-2.^ 

Nowadays,  when  a  Speaker  finally  relinquishes  the  Chair, 
it  would  be  considered  derogatory  to  his  dignity  for  him  to 
reappear  in  the  House  as  a  simple  member  of  Parliament. 
Addington  did  so,  but  soon  realized  the  difficulty  of  his 
position,  and  requested  that  he  might  be  elevated  to  the 
House  of  Lords. 

It  has  long  been  the  custom  for  the  Commons  to  ask  the 
Crown  to  recognize  in  a  material  fashion  the  services  of  a 
retiring  Speaker.  He  is  allowed  a  pension  of  ;^4000  a  year, 
and,  ever  since  the  retirement  of  Abbot  in  18 17,  a  peerage  of 
the  rank  of  a  viscountcy  has  been  conferred  upon  him. 

Placed  in  a  position  of  extraordinary  trust,  hedged  about 
with  the  lofty  traditions  of  his  office,  weighed  down  by 
heavy  responsibilities,  engaged  in  a  sedentary  occupation 
during  the  greater  part  of  the  day  or  night,  a  Speaker  may 
well  agree  with  that  candid  correspondent  who,  in  con- 
gratulating Addington  on  his  elevation  to  the  Chair  in  1789, 
referred  to  the  Speakership  as  "  one  of  the  most  awful  posts 
I  know."  2 

In  the  long  list  of  those  who  have  so  ably  guided  and 
controlled  the  proceedings  of  the  House  of  Commons  during 
the  last  hundred  years,  many  names  stand  forth  conspicuously 
— Manners  Sutton,  Shaw  Lefevre,  Denison,  Brand,  Peel. 
No  Speaker  has  ever  fallen  short  of  the  trust  reposed  in  him, 
or  failed  in  his  duty  to  the  House,  and  it  may  confidently 
be  asserted  that  so  long  as  the  standard  of  English  political 
life  maintains  its  present  high  level,  no  difficulty  will  ever  be 
experienced  in  providing  the  Chair  with  an  occupant  who 
shall  fill  it,  not  only  worthily,  but  with  distinction. 

'  "Croker  Papers,"  vol.  ii.  p.  164. 

2  Pellew's  "  Life  of  Sidmouth,"  vol.  i.  p.  66. 


CHAPTER  VIII 
THE   OPENING   OF    PARLIAMENT 

PARLIAMENT,  like  everything  else,  must  have  a  begin- 
ning. The  opening  of  a  session  which  is  also  the 
commencement  of  a  new  Parliament  is  an  event  which 
tradition  invests  with  all  the  accompaniments  of  what  Cobden 
contemptuously  referred  to  as  "barbaric  pomp."  The  in- 
augural rites  are  performed  with  a  stately  ceremonial  of  which 
Selden  himself  would  have  approved  ^ ;  everything  is  done  to 
make  the  pageant  as  impressive  as  possible. 

The  actual  business  of  the  opening  may  be  described  as 
extending  over  several  days,  the  climax  being  reached  when 
the  sovereign  arrives  in  person  to  deliver  his  speech. 

The  opening  itself  is  nowadays  performed  by  a  Commission 
issued  for  that  purpose  under  the  Great  Seal.  On  the  day 
appointed  by  royal  proclamation  for  the  meeting  of  a  new 
Parliament,  the  Houses  assemble  in  their  respective  chambers. 
Before  doing  so,  however,  special  precautions  have  been  taken 
to  ensure  the  safety  of  our  legislators.  A  picturesque 
procession,  composed  of  Yeomen  of  the  Guard  in  their 
striking  uniforms,  makes  its  way  through  the  numerous 
subterranean  vaults  of  the  Palace  of  Westminster,  seeking 
diligently  for  the  handiwork  of  some  modern  Guy  Fawkes. 
This  now  familiar  search  is  an  ancient  custom  kept  up  more 
in  accordance  with  popular  sentiment  than  for  any  practical 
reason.     The  duties  of  the  Beefeaters  have  no  doubt  already 

1  "Ceremony,"  says  Selden,  "keeps  up  all  things  ;  'tis  like  a  penny 
glass  to  a  rich  spirit,  or  some  excellent  water  ;  without  it  the  water  will 
be  spilt,  the  spirit  lost." 

135 


136  THE   MOTHER   OF   PARLIAMENTS 

been  anticipated  by  the  police,  but  though  the  fruitlessness 
of  their  quest  is  now  a  matter  of  regular  recurrence,  they 
persistently  refuse  to  be  discouraged,  and  the  search  is 
prosecuted  with  renewed  hopefulness  at  the  commencement 
of  every  session.^ 

At  two  o'clock  in  the  afternoon,  the  Lord  Chancellor, 
preceded  by  the  Mace  and  Purse,  and  attended  by  his  Train 
Bearer,  enters  the  House  of  Lords  by  the  Bar.  He  is  dressed 
in  his  robes,  and  when  he  has  taken  his  seat,  places  his 
cocked  hat  upon  his  head.  Four  other  Lords  Commissioners, 
similarly  attired,  are  seated  beside  him  on  a  bench  situated 
between  the  Woolsack  and  the  Throne.  From  this  point  of 
vantage  the  Chancellor  summons  the  Gentleman  Usher  of 
the  Black  Rod,  and  commands  him  to  inform  the  Commons 
that  their  immediate  attendance  is  desired  in  the  House  of 
Lords  to  hear  the  Commission  read. 

The  post  of  Gentleman  Usher  of  the  Black  Rod  dates 
from  the  reign  of  Henry  VHI.  By  the  constitution  creating 
the  Order  of  the  Garter,  he  was  to  be  an  officer  "  whom  the 
Sovereign  and  Companions  will  shall  be  a  gentleman  famous 
in  Arms  and  Blood,  and  live  within  the  Dominions  of  the 
Sovereign,  and,  for  the  dignity  and  honour  of  the  Order,  shall 
be  chief  of  all  Ushers  of  this  Kingdom,  and  have  the  care 
and  custody  of  the  doors  of  the  High  Court  called  Parliament." 
Black  Rod,  either  personally  or  through  his  deputy,  the 
Yeoman  Usher,  fulfils  in  the  House  of  Lords  the  functions 
which  are  performed  in  the  Lower  House  by  the  Sergeant-at- 
Arms  of  the  Commons.  As  custodian  of  the  doors  of  Parlia- 
ment, he  once  had  the  right  to  appoint  all  the  doorkeepers 
and  messengers  of  the  House  of  Lords,  as  well  as  his 
assistant,  the  Yeoman  Usher.  He  used  in  old  days  to  sell 
these  appointments  for  large  sums,  and  as  his  fees  brought  him 
in  a  substantial  income — in  1875  they  amounted  to  ^5300 — 
and  he  was  also  provided  with  an  official  residence,  his  post 
was  one  to  be  coveted.     The  system  of  paying  officials  by 

'  They  even  carry  lighted  lanterns,  though  the  whole  place  is  ablaze 
with  electric  light ! 


THE  OPENING   OF   PARLIAMENT  137 

fees  was,  however,  abolished  in  1877,  and  Black  Rod's  annual 
salary  was  fixed  at  ^^2000,  which  to-day  has  been  reduced  by 
half,  while  his  residence  has  been  taken  from  him  and  given 
to  the  Clerk  of  the  Parliaments. 

On  receipt  of  the  Lord  Chancellor's  command,  Black  Rod 
at  once  obeys — he  is  usually  a  retired  naval  or  military  officer 
and  the  spirit  of  discipline  is  still  strong  within  him — and 
repairs  to  the  Lower  House  to  deliver  his  message. 

Meanwhile  a  busy  scene  is  being  enacted  in  the  House  of 
Commons.  From  the  earliest  hours  before  the  dawn  members 
have  been  gradually  assembling  at  Westminster.  At  the 
gates  of  Palace  Yard  a  respectful  crowd  collects  to  watch  the 
arrival  of  the  nation's  lawmakers.  Motor-cars,  carriages,  and 
the  more  humble  public  conveyances  flow  in  a  ceaseless 
stream  through  the  Commons'  gates.  The  traffic  at  the 
corner  of  Whitehall  is  perpetually  held  up  to  allow  some 
member  to  cross  the  street  in  safety,  much  to  the  annoyance 
of  travellers  who  desire  to  catch  a  train  at  Waterloo  Station. 
Smiling  police  constables  salute  the  old  familiar  faces,  care- 
fully scrutinizing  the  new  ones  for  future  reference. 

The  House  within  presents  something  of  the  appearance 
of  a  school  on  the  first  day  of  a  new  term.  The  old  boys 
welcome  each  other  effusively,  exchanging  holiday  remi- 
niscences ;  the  new  boys  wander  timidly  about  the  precincts, 
seeking  to  increase  their  topographical  knowledge.  Friend 
greets  friend  with  all  the  warmth  engendered  by  separation  ; 
colleagues  describe  their  own,  and  inquire  tenderly  after 
one  another's,  ailments.  Even  the  bitterest  opponents  may 
be  seen  congratulating  each  other  on  re-election,  or  exchanging 
accounts  of  their  individual  experiences  during  the  recess. 
An  atmosphere  of  peace  and  goodwill  pervades  the  whole 
House. 

All  is  bustle  and  confusion  in  the  Chamber  itself,  where 
members  hasten  to  secure  places  on  the  green  benches  upon 
either  side  of  the  Speaker's  Chair.  By  the  rules  of  the  House 
no  member  has  a  right  to  reserve  a  seat  unless  he  has  been 
present  within  the  precincts  during  prayers,  and  has  staked 


138  THE   MOTHER   OF   PARLIAMENTS 

out  his  claim  either  with  a  hat  or  a  card  provided  for  the 
purpose.  The  hat  used  on  this  occasion  must  be  a  member's 
own  "  real  working  hat."  He  may  not  arrive  with  two  hats, 
one  to  wear  and  the  other  to  employ  as  a  seat-preserver ;  nor 
is  he  permitted  to  borrow  the  headgear  of  a  friend  who  has 
already  secured  a  seat.  A  story  is  told  of  some  wily  member 
appearing  at  Westminster,  on  the  morning  of  an  important 
debate,  in  a  four-wheeler  brimming  over  with  hats  which  he 
proposed  to  distribute  upon  the  benches  in  order  to  retain 
places  for  his  party.  Such  conduct,  however,  though  ingenious, 
is  strictly  contrary  to  regulations,  and  could  scarcely  hope 
to  escape  the  vigilant  eye  of  the  Sergeant-at-Arms. 

Certain  privileges  are  accorded  to  members  who  by  reason 
of  their  distinguished  position,  or  long  service  in  the  House, 
have  acquired  a  claim  to  particular  seats.  The  two  front 
benches  on  either  side  have  long  been  reserved  for  the  more 
prominent  politicians.  On  the  right  of  the  Chair  is  the 
Treasury  Bench,  where  IMinisters  sit ;  while  the  front  seat 
facing  them  is  occupied  by  the  leading  members  of  the 
Opposition.  It  has  been  customary  for  Privy  Councillors 
to  sit  on  these  two  benches,  and  at  the  opening  of  Parliament 
the  members  for  the  City  of  London  may  claim  a  similar 
privilege. 

The  right  of  Cabinet  Ministers  to  occupy  front  seats, 
now  undisputed,  was  sometimes  questioned  in  olden  days. 
In  1601,  as  the  outcome  of  complaints  on  this  subject,  Robert 
Cecil,  then  Secretary  of  State,  offered  to  give  up  his  place 
most  willingly  to  any  member  who  wished  to  sit  near  the 
Chair.  "We  that  sit  here,"  he  said,  "take  your  favours 
out  of  courtesy,  not  out  of  right."  ^  Courtesy,  has,  indeed, 
generally  been  displayed  by  members  on  this  particular 
question,  though  there  have  been  occasional  exceptions. 
That  rough  diamond,  Cobbett,  who  was  frequently  com- 
plaining of  the  lack  of  space  in  the  House,  occupied  Sir 
Robert  Peel's  accustomed  seat  one  day,  as  a  protest  against 
the  insufficient  accommodation  of  the  Chamber.  No  notice, 
>  D'Ewes'  "  Journal,"  p.  630. 


THE   OPENING   OF   PARLIAMENT  139 

however,  was  taken  of  his  conduct,  and  his  rude  but  legitimate 
methods  have  never  since  been  emulated. 

A  member  who  has  been  honoured  by  a  parliamentary 
vote  of  thanks,  or  has  grown  grey  in  the  service  of  the 
House,  is  usually  allowed  to  retain  his  seat.^  Hume,  who 
attended  every  single  debate  during  the  period  of  his  member- 
ship, for  years  occupied  the  same  bench  close  to  one  of  the 
pillars  supporting  the  gallery  above  the  Speaker's  Chair. 
"There  is  Joseph,"  remarked  a  wag  who  was  not  above 
making  a  pun,  "  always  at  his  post  !  "  ^ 

Otherwise  members  may  sit  wherever  they  please,  provided 
they  have  qualified  by  presence  at  prayers.  Certain  positions 
in  the  House  have,  however,  come  to  be  regarded  as  symbolical 
of  the  political  views  of  their  occupants.  Supporters  of  the 
Government  sit  on  the  right  and  those  of  the  Opposition  on 
the  left  of  the  chair.  The  aisle  or  passage  that  divides  the 
House  transversely  has  always  acted  as  a  sort  of  political 
boundary,  and  members  who  are  independent  of  either  party 
proclaim  their  freedom  by  sitting  "below  the  gangway." 
Here  on  the  Opposition  side  the  Irish  party  has  sat  for  many 
years  ;  here,  to6,  the  Labour  members  mostly  congregate. 

On  the  opening  day  the  Speaker's  Chair  is,  of  course, 
vacant,  and  the  mace  reposes  peacefully  underneath  the 
table.  The  duties  of  Chairman  are  undertaken  by  the  Clerk 
of  the  House,  who  sits  in  his  usual  place,  and  presides  in 
dumb  show  over  the  proceedings. 

The  clerkship  of  the  House  of  Commons  is  an  important 
post,  and  has  been  in  the  hands  of  many  capable  and  dis- 
tinguished men.  Among  the  famous  lawyers  who  have  held 
this  office  may  be  instanced  Elsynge — ridiculed  in  Hudibras 
as  "  Cler  :  Pari :  Dom  :  Com  : "  3— Hatsell,  Erskine  May,  and 

1  Sir  George  do  Lacy  Evans  (1787-1870)  was  the  last  member 
honoured  by  being  allowed  to  retain  the  seat  in  which  he  had  received 
his  vote  of  thanks. 

2  Grant's  "  Random  Recollections,"  p.  7. 

3  "Hudibras,"  vol.  i.  p.  120.  During  the  first  years  of  the  Long 
Parliament  Elsynge  brought  so  much  distinction  to  the  position  that 
his  authority  was  said  to  be  greater  than  that  of  the  Speaker  (Lenthall). 


I40  THE   MOTHER   OF   PARLIAMENTS 

Palgrave,  all  of  whom  have  made  valuable  literary  contribu- 
tions to  the  annals  of  parliamentary  history. 

The  post  has  also  been  temporarily  filled  by  persons  of 
considerably  less  eminence.  In  1601,  for  example,  Fulk 
Onslow,  who  was  then  clerk,  was  permitted  to  appoint  his 
servant,  one  Cadwallader  Tydder,  to  act  as  his  deputy. 
Again,  in  1620,  the  clerk  being  incapacitated  by  illness, 
his  son  was  allowed  to  take  his  place,  and  it  was  advised 
that  a  lawyer  should  sit  beside  him  "  with  a  hat  upon  his 
head  "  to  assist  the  youth  in  his  unaccustomed  role}  It  is 
the  Clerk's  duty  to  record  the  proceedings,  edit  the  Journals, 
and  sign  any  orders  issued  by  the  House.  Up  to  the  year 
1649,  when  he  was  given  an  annual  salary  of  £^00,  his  income 
consisted  of  £,\o  a  year  (paid  half-yearly!)  and  certain  fees 
on  private  bills.  A  collection,  amounting  to  about  £2^'^  to 
which  all  members  were  expected  to  contribute  sums  varying 
from  5J-.  \.o  £\,  was  also  made  for  him  at  the  close  of  the 
session.  This  sounds  a  paltry  sum,  but  Hatsell  is  said 
to  have  made  ;^I0,000  a  year  while  Clerk  of  the  House, 
among  his  other  perquisites  being  a  douceur  of  ;^300,  which 
the  Clerk  Assistant  paid  to  his  chief  for  the  privilege  of 
appointment.  In  those  days  the  Clerk  could  also  earn 
small  sums  by  copying  Bills  or  making  extracts  from  the 
Journals  of  the  House  for  members,  who  paid  him  at  the 
rate  of  ten  lines  a  penny,  though  if  they  declared  upon  oath 
that  they  were  unable  to  pay  this  sum,  no  charge  was  made 
for  the  work.^ 

The  arrival  of  the  messenger  from  the  House  of  Lords  is 
heralded  in  the  lobbies  by  loud  cries  of  "  Black  Rod  !  "  The 
door  of  the  House  of  Commons  is  flung  open,  and  the  Gentle- 
man Usher,  in  full  uniform  and  decorations,  and  bearing  the 

His  abilities,  "especially  in  taking  and  expressing  the  sense  of  the 
House,"  became  so  conspicuous  that  "  more  reverence  was  paid  to  his 
stool  than  to  the  Speaker's  chair." — Wood's  ''  Athenai  O.xonienses," 
vol.  iii.  p.  363. 

'  Hatsell's  "  Precedents,"  vol.  ii.  p.  251  n. 

-  D'Ewes'  "  Journal,"  p.  688. 

^  ''  Modus  Tcnendi  Parliamentum,"  p.  46 


THE   OPENING  OF   PARLIAMENT  141 

wand  of  his  office  in  his  hand,  advances  in  a  stately  fashion 
up  the  floor  of  the  House  and  delivers  his  message.  He 
then  retires  backwards  as  gracefully  as  possible  until  he 
reaches  the  Bar,  where  he  awaits  the  arrival  of  the  Clerk. 
The  two  now  walk  together,  attended  by  as  many  members 
as  care  to  accompany  them,  to  the  Bar  of  the  House  of 
Lords,  where  the  Lords  Commissioners  are  awaiting  their 
advent. 

As  soon  as  the  Commons'  contingent  appears,  the  Lord 
Chancellor  orders  the  reading  of  the  Letters  Patent  constitu- 
ting the  Commission  for  the  opening  of  Parliament,  and  when 
this  task  has  been  performed  by  the  Reading  Clerk  of  the 
House  of  Lords,  desires  the  faithful  Commons  to  retire  and 
choose  a  Speaker.  With  this  purpose  in  view  the  members 
return  forthwith  to  the  Lower  House. 

The  election  of  a  Speaker  is  the  most  important  part  of 
the  day's  business,  for  without  it  the  House  of  Commons 
cannot  be  constituted,  nor  can  members  be  permitted  to  take 
the  oath. 

Theoretically  a  Speaker  leaves  the  Chair  with  the  Parlia- 
ment that  elected  him.  Practically,  nowadays,  he  is  retained 
in  office.  He  is  reappointed  with  the  usual  ceremonies  at  the 
beginning  of  every  Parliament,  and  it  is  rare  for  an  incoming 
Ministry  to  supplant  the  occupant  of  the  Chair,  even  though  he 
may  have  been  the  nominee  of  political  opponents.  Manners 
Sutton  was  six  times  Speaker,  Arthur  Onslow  five  times, 
while  Shaw  Lefevre,  Denison,  and  Peel  each  occupied  the 
Chair  in  four  successive  Parliaments.  Since  their  day  an 
unwise  and  abortive  attempt  was  made  to  replace  Speaker 
Gully  by  a  Conservative  nominee  in  1895,  ^"^  ^^  is  unlikely 
that  such  an  incident  will  recur. 

The  motion  for  a  Speaker's  election  is  made  by  a  member 
on  the  Government  side  of  the  House,  and  usually  seconded 
by  a  member  of  the  Opposition,  both  being  called  upon  to 
speak  by  the  Clerk  who  silently  points  his  finger  at  each  in  turn. 
If  it  is  intended  to  contest  the  election,  the  two  candidates 
put  forward  are  proposed  and  seconded  separately  by  members 


142  THE   MOTHER   OF   PARLIAMENTS 

of  their  own  party.  The  question  that  the  Government  candi- 
date "  do  take  the  Chair  of  this  House  as  Speaker  "  is  first 
put  by  the  Clerk,  and  divided  upon  in  the  ordinary  way.  If 
a  majority  of  the  House  is  in  favour  of  the  election  of  this 
candidate,  no  further  division  is  necessary.  If  not,  the  same 
proceeding  is  carried  out  with  regard  to  the  second  candidate. 
In  such  cases  it  has  been  the  custom  for  each  nominee  to 
vote  for  his  opponent.  The  division  is  naturally  one  of 
intense  interest.  Perhaps  the  most  exciting  elections  of  a 
Speaker  that  have  ever  occurred  were  those  that  took  place 
in  1835  and  1895.  On  the  first  occasion  Abercrombie  was 
elected  to  replace  Manners  Sutton,  by  the  narrow  margin  of 
ten,^  and  in  1895  Speaker  Gully's  majority  only  exceeded 
this  by  a  single  vote. 

"When  it  appeareth  who  is  chosen,"  says  Elsynge,  "after 
a  good  pause  he  standeth  up,  and  showeth  what  abilities  are 
required  in  the  Speaker,  and  that  there  are  divers  amongst 
them  well  furnished  with  such  qualities,  etc.,  disableth  himself 
and  prayeth  a  new  choice  to  be  made.  After  which  two  go 
unto  him  in  the  place  where  he  sits  and  take  him  by  the  arms, 
and  lead  him  to  the  chair."  ^  In  old  days  it  was  customary 
for  the  Speaker-Elect  to  "  disable  "  himself  at  great  length 
and  in  the  humblest  possible  terms.  Christopher  Wray,  in 
1570,  spoke  for  two  hours  in  this  sclf-deprccatory  style. 
Sergeant  Yelverton,  twenty-six  years  later,  explained  his 
unfitness  for  the  post  in  a  lengthy  harangue  in  which  he 
remarked  that  if  "  Demosthenes,  being  so  learned  and 
eloquent  as  he  was,  one  whom  none  surpassed,  trembled 
to  speak  before  Phocion  at  Athens,  how  much  more  shall  I, 
being  unlearned  and  unskilful,  supply  this  place  of  dignity, 
charge,  and  trouble  to  speak  before  so  many  Phocions  as 
here  be  ? "  ^  Other  Speakers  put  forward  "  a  sudden  disease," 
"  extreme  youth,"  or  some  similar  disability  as  their  excuse 
for  escaping  from  the  service  of  the  Chair.     Even  as  late  as 

•  Torrens'  "  Life  of  Graham,"  vol.  ii.  p.  30. 

*  Elsynge's  "  Parliaments  of  England,''  pp.  160  and  i6r. 
2  D'Ewes'  "Journal,"  p.  549.' 


THE   OPENING  OF   PARLIAMENT  143 

the  beginning  of  the  eighteenth  century  Sir  Spencer  Compton 
thought  it  necessary  to  declare  to  the  Commons  that  he  had 
"  neither  the  memory  to  retain,  the  judgment  to  collect,  nor 
the  skill  to  guide  their  debates."  ^ 

This  excessive  humility  on  the  part  of  a  Speaker-Elect 
has  now  disappeared,  together  with  the  ridiculous  old  custom 
whereby  it  was  considered  correct  for  him  to  evince  actual 
physical  reluctance  to  take  the  Chair.  It  was  once  deemed 
proper  for  the  newly  elected  Speaker  to  refuse  to  occupy  the 
exalted  throne  that  awaited  him  until  his  two  supporters  had 
seized  him  by  the  arms  and  dragged  him  like  some  unwilling 
victim  to  the  scafifold.  To-day,  he  "goes  quietly,"  as  the 
police  say;  the  proposer  and  seconder  lead  him  gently  by 
the  hand,  and  he  gives  his  attendants  no  trouble  at  all. 

After  the  Speaker  has  taken  the  Chair,  the  mace  is  laid 
upon  the  table  before  him,  the  leaders  of  either  Party  offer 
their  congratulations,  and  the  business  of  the  day  is  over. 

When  Parliament  meets  once  more,  on  the  following  after- 
noon, the  Chancellor  and  his  four  fellow  Lords  Commissioners, 
attired  as  before,  in  their  robes,  resume  their  seats  upon  the 
bench  in  the  House  of  Lords,  and  Black  Rod  is  again  com- 
manded to  summon  the  Commons.  This  time  his  task  is  not 
so  simple.  When  the  messenger  from  the  Lords  arrives  at 
the  door  of  the  House  of  Commons,  he  finds  it  barred  against 
him,  nor  is  it  opened  until  he  has  knocked  thrice  upon  it  and 
craved  permission  to  enter.  This  custom  of  refusing  instant 
admittance  to  the  Lords'  official  dates  from  those  early  times 
when  messages  from  the  Crown  were  regarded  by  the  jealous 
Commons  with  feelings  bordering  on  abhorrence. 

The  Speaker-Elect,  clad  in  his  official  dress,  but  without 
his  robe,  and  wearing  upon  his  head  a  small  bob-wig  in  place 
of  that  luxuriant  full-buttomed  affair  which  he  is  so  soon  to 
don,  has  already  taken  his  seat  in  the  Chair,  making  three 
profound  obeisances  to  that  article  of  furniture  as  he  advances 
towards  it. 

When  Black  Rod  has  delivered  his  message,  the  Speaker- 

^  Townsend's  "  History  of  the  House  of  Commons,  vol.  i.  p.  228. 


144  THE   MOTHER   OF   PARLIAMENTS 

Elect,  surrounded  by  his  official  retinue,  proceeds  at  once  to 
the  House  of  Lords.  Here  he  is  politely  received  by  the 
Lords  Commissioners,  who  raise  their  hats  three  times  in 
acknowledgment  of  his  three  obeisances.  After  acquainting 
the  Lords  Commissioners  of  his  recent  election,  he  humbly 
submits  himself  to  the  royal  approbation.  The  Lord  Chan- 
cellor thereupon  expresses  His  Majesty's  approval  of  the 
Commons'  choice,  and  the  election  of  the  Speaker  is  con- 
firmed. In  former  days  the  sovereign  was  in  the  habit 
of  undertaking  this  duty  in  person.  On  January  27,  1562, 
Queen  Elizabeth  came  to  Westminster  in  her  state  barge, 
"  apparelled  in  her  mantles  open  furred  with  ermine  and  in 
her  Kyrtle  of  crimson  velvet  closed  before,  and  close  sleeves, 
but  the  hands  turned  up  with  ermine.  A  hood  hanging 
loose  round  about  her  neck  of  ermine.  Over  all  a  rich  collar 
set  with  stones  and  other  jewels,  and  on  her  head  a  rich  call."  ^ 
Thus  attired,  she  proceeded  to  give  the  royal  assent  to  the 
election  of  the  Speaker.  This  nowadays  is  a  mere  formality — 
it  has  indeed  only  once  been  refused,  in  1678,  when  Charles 
II.  declined  to  sanction  the  election  of  Sir  Edward  Seymour — 
and  is  given  by  the  Lords  Commissioners  on  the  sovereign's 
behalf. 

In  the  days  when  the  sovereign  was  in  the  habit  of  being 
present  in  the  House  of  Lords  to  ratify  the  choice  of  Speaker, 
the  latter  would  often  excuse  himself  to  his  monarch  in  terms 
even  more  abject  than  he  had  used  in  the  Lower  House. 
Before  the  election  of  Sir  Richard  Waldegrave,  in  1381, 
Speakers  did  not  excuse  themselves  at  all,  and  until  Henry 
VIII. 's  time  they  do  not  seem  to  have  done  so  as  a  matter  of 
etiquette,  but  merely  from  personal  motives,  wishing  to 
ingratiate  themselves  with  the  sovereign  in  whose  pay  they 
were  and  to  whom  they  looked  for  advancement.  But  towards 
the  middle  of  the  sixteenth  century  they  began  regularly  to 
address  the  king  in  a  fulsome  fashion.^     In  1537,  for  instance, 

'  "The  Order  for  Proceeding  to  the  Parliament "  (from  the  MS.  at 
the  College  of  Arms). 

-  For  a  particularly  servile  speech  of  this  kind  see  "  The  Sovereign's 
Prerogative,"  p.  7. 


THE   OPENING   OF   PARLIAMENT  145 

we  find  Speaker  Rich  grovelling  in  abject  prostration  at  the 
royal  feet,  and  comparing  the  King  to  Solomon,  Samson, 
Absalom,  and  most  of  the  other  heroes  of  Old  Testament 
history.  Even  among  the  Speakers  of  that  day,  however, 
there  were  men  who  refused  to  demean  themselves  to  this 
form  of  flattery,  and  Queen  Elizabeth  was  once  forced  to 
listen  patiently  while  Richard  Onslow,  who  declared  himself 
to  be  "  a  plain  speaker,  fit  for  the  plain  matter,  and  to  use 
plain  words,"  delivered  to  Her  Majesty  an  "  excellent  oration," 
which  lasted  for  two  solid  hours.^ 

This  practice  is  fortunately  extinct,  but  one  other  custom 
ot  Henry  VIII.'s  time  still  obtains.  To-day  the  Speaker,  on 
receipt  of  the  royal  approbation,  takes  the  opportunity  of  at 
once  demanding  the  "ancient  and  undoubted  rights  and  privi- 
leges of  the  Commons" — freedom  from  arrest,  liberty  of  speech, 
access  to  the  royal  person,  and  that  a  favourable  construction 
be  put  upon  their  proceedings — and  on  his  own  behalf  begs 
that  whatever  error  may  occur  in  the  discharge  of  his  duties 
shall  be  imputed  to  him  alone,  and  not  to  His  Majesty's 
faithful  Commons. 

These  ancient  rights  and  privileges  having  been  confirmed 
by  the  King,  through  his  Lords  Commissioners  and  by  the 
mouth  of  his  Lord  Chancellor,  the  Speaker  withdraws  to  the 
Lower  House.  There  he  acquaints  the  Commons  of  the  result 
of  his  recent  pilgrimage,  and  gratefully  assures  them  once 
more  of  his  complete  devotion  to  their  service.  After  retiring 
for  a  few  moments  to  make  the  necessary  alterations  in  his 
costume,  he  returns,  clad  in  his  robe  and  wearing  his  full- 
bottomed  wig,  and  is  now  a  complete  and  perfect  Speaker. 

While  this  is  going  on,  the  Upper  House  has  temporarily 
adjourned  to  unrobe,  and  afterwards  resumes  to  enable  the 
Lords  to  continue  taking  the  Oath,  which  is  meanwhile  being 
administered  to  the  Commons. 

Prior  to  the  sixteenth  century,  members  of  Parliament 
were  not  required  to  swear ;  the  Lords  did  not  do  so  until 

^  "  Observations,  Rules  and  Orders  collected  out  of  Divers  Journals 
of  the  House  of  Commons,"  p.  25. 

L 


146  THE   MOTHER   OF   PARLIAMENTS 

1678.  But  the  Act  of  Supremacy  of  1 563  made  it  necessary 
for  all  members  of  the  Commons  to  take  the  oath,  and  in 
1610  were  introduced  further  oaths  of  Allegiance  and  Abjura- 
tion which  were  maintained  until  1829.  The  old  oaths  aimed 
at  excluding  Roman  Catholics  from  Parliament,  and  the 
regulation  which  in  16 14  ordered  every  member  to  take 
the  sacrament  in  St.  Margaret's  Church  on  the  Opening  Day 
was  but  another  means  of  ensuring  the  religious  loyalty  of 
the  Commons. 

Members  of  the  Lower  House  cannot  take  the  oath  until 
their  Speaker  has  been  approved  and  sworn  ;  the  Lords  may 
do  so  as  soon  as  Parliament  opens.  In  the  Upper  House  the 
oath  may  be  taken  at  any  convenient  time  when  the  House  is 
sitting  ;  in  the  House  of  Commons  likewise  it  may  be  taken 
whenever  a  full  House  is  sitting  at  any  hour  before  business 
has  begun. 

The  Lord  Chancellor  leads  the  way  in  the  House  of 
Lords.  When  he  has  presented  his  writ  of  summons, 
repeated  the  formal  words  of  the  Oath  of  Allegiance  after 
the  Clerk,  kissed  the  New  Testament,  and  subscribed  to  the 
Test  Roll,  he  resumes  his  seat  on  the  Woolsack.  The  peers 
then  succeed  one  another  in  rapid  rotation  at  the  table, 
handing  their  writs  of  summons  to  the  Clerk,  and  following 
the  Chancellor's  example. 

In  the  Commons  the  Speaker  first  takes  the  oath  in  a 
very  similar  fashion,  and  writes  his  name  in  the  Roll  of 
Members.  After  this  ceremony  is  accomplished,  members 
come  up  to  the  table  in  batches  of  five,  and  are  sworn  simul- 
taneously. They  then  shake  hands  with  the  Speaker,  and 
can  now  consider  themselves  full-fledged  members  of 
Parliament. 

Up  to  the  middle  of  the  last  century  three  oaths  had  to 
be  taken  by  every  member  of  either  House  :  the  oaths  of 
Allegiance,  of  Supremacy,  and  Abjuration.  There  was  further 
a  declaration  against  transubstantiation  which  effectually 
excluded  Roman  Catholics.  But  in  1829  these  last  received 
relief,  though  the  final  words  of  the  Oath  of  Abjuration  still 


THE  OPENING   OF  PARLIAMENT  147 

kept  out  the  Jews.^  In  1849  Baron  Lionel  de  Rothschild  was 
excluded  from  the  Commons  because  of  his  failure  to  swear 
on  "  the  true  faith  of  a  Christian."  He  accepted  the  Chiltern 
Hundreds,  but  was  again  returned  to  Parliament  by  the  City 
of  London.  And  though  he  once  more  failed  to  obtain  per- 
mission to  vote  in  the  House,  he  was  allowed  to  sit  there  until 
1857.^  Six  years  before  this  latter  date  another  Jew,  Alder- 
man Salomons,  insisted  upon  taking  his  seat  and  voting  in  a 
division.  He  was  forcibly  ejected  by  the  Sergeant-at-Arms, 
and  subsequently  fined  £SC)0  in  the  Exchequer  Court  as  a 
penalty  for  voting  without  having  previously  taken  the  oath. 
In  1858  an  Act  was  passed  substituting  a  single  oath  for  the 
former  three,  and  giving  both  Houses  power  to  deal  with  the 
Jewish  difficulty  by  resolution,  but  it  was  not  until  1866  that 
the  words  referring  to  Christianity  were  finally  omitted  from 
the  oath. 

The  refusal  of  Quakers  and  atheists  to  take  the  oath  dis- 
turbed for  many  years  the  peace  of  mind  of  Parliament,  and 
was  the  subject  of  frequent  legislation.  In  1832  the  Quaker 
Pease  was  elected  for  a  Durham  division,  and  claimed  the 
right  of  affirming  instead  of  taking  the  oath.  A  Committee 
was  appointed  to  consider  the  validity  of  such  an  affirmation, 
and  came  to  the  conclusion  that  this  form  might  be  sub- 
stituted harmlessly  for  the  more  usual  oath. 

The  case  of  the  atheist  Bradlaugh,  which  lasted  for  nearly 
ten  years,  was  a  much  more  complicated  affair,  and  presented 
endless  difficulties  to  the  parliamentary  mind. 

We  have  grown  more  broad-minded  during  the  last  fifty 
years,  and  the  story  of  Bradlaugh's  persecution  sounds  in- 
credible to  modern  ears.     This  unfortunate  man  was  hounded 

*  A  peer  in  support  contended  that  otherwise  a  Jew  might  become 
Lord  Chancellor.  "  Why  not  ?  "  asked  Lord  Lyndhurst,  in  an  undertone. 
"  Daniel  would  have  made  a  very  good  one  ! "  (Atlay's  "  Victorian 
Chancellors,"  vol.  i.  p.  61.) 

-  Failure  to  take  the  oath  only  prevents  a  member  from  sitting  within 
the  Bar,  voting  in  divisions,  and  taking  part  in  debate.  It  does  not  dis- 
qualify him  from  the  other  privileges  of  membership,  nor  does  it  render 
his  seat  vacant. 


148  THE   MOTHER   OF   PARLIAMENTS 

and  harassed  with  a  degree  of  intolerance  which  was  almost 
mediaeval  in  its  ferocity.  Politicians  of  every  grade  combined 
to  insult  and  bait  him  ;  he  became  the  butt  of  Parliament, 
and  evoked  from  men  who  had  hitherto  shown  but  little  zeal 
in  their  faith  a  religious  ardour  of  the  most  fanatical  and 
bigoted  description. 

Bradlaugh  was  returned  to  Parliament  as  member  for 
Northampton  in  1880.  As  an  atheist  it  was  against  his 
principles  to  swear  upon  the  Bible.  When,  therefore,  he  pre- 
sented himself  in  the  House  of  Commons  with  the  intention 
of  taking  his  seat,  he  asked  to  be  allowed  to  affirm  instead  of 
taking  the  oath.  The  fact  of  his  being  entirely  devoid  of  any 
religious  beliefs  or  scruples  rendered  an  affirmation  in  the 
form  usual  in  Parliament  practically  valueless.  His  request 
was  accordingly  refused,  and  when  he  declined  to  withdraw 
from  the  House,  he  was  committed  to  the  custody  of  the 
Sergeant-at-Arms. 

Many  members  of  the  House  of  Commons  were  deter- 
mined to  prevent  such  a  man  from  taking  his  seat,  and  for 
a  long  time  its  doors  remained  closed  against  him.  Lord 
Randolph  Churchill  made  a  violent  attack  upon  him  on 
the  24th  of  May,  in  the  course  of  which  he  read  an  extract 
from  Bradlaugh's  book,  "The  Impeachment  of  the  House  of 
Brunswick,"  hurling  the  offensive  volume  on  the  floor  and 
trampling  it  underfoot.  The  House  of  Commons  has  always 
disliked  anything  that  borders  upon  melodrama,  and  this 
action,  more  suited  to  the  boards  of  the  Adelphi  than  to 
the  stage  of  Parliament,  fell  as  flat  as  Burke's  famous 
dagger.'      But  the  spirit  that  prompted  it  was  the  popular 

'  In  1792  a  sample  dagger  was  sent  from  France  to  a  Birmingham 
firm,  who  were  asked  to  make  3000  more  of  similar  pattern.  They 
thought  the  order  suspicious,  and  consulted  the  Secretary  of  State. 
Burke  happened  to  call  at  the  latter's  office,  saw  the  dagger  there,  and 
borrowed  it.  During  the  Second  Reading  of  the  Aliens  Bill  he  hurled 
this  weapon  on  to  the  floor  of  the  House,  exclaiming,  "  Let  us  keep 
French  principles  from  our  heads,  and  French  daggers  from  our  hearts  ! '' 
The  Commons  were  not  impressed,  and  only  laughed,  while  Sheridan 
whispered  to  a  neighbour,  "The  gentleman  has  brought  us  the  knife, 
but  where  is  the  fork  ? ''    Another  attempt  at  dramatic  effect,  equally 


THE   OPENING   OF   PARLIAMENT  149 

one,  and  it  long  seemed  impossible  for  an  atheist  to  sit  in 
the  House. 

On  July  I,  Gladstone  moved  a  resolution  allowing 
members  who  could  not  conscientiously  take  the  oath  to 
affirm,  subject  to  any  legal  liabilities  they  might  incur,  and 
on  the  following  day  Bradlaugh  made  the  necessary  affirma- 
tion. The  affair  did  not  end  here,  however.  The  legal 
authorities  had  been  stirred  up  to  investigate  the  judicial 
aspect  of  the  case,  and  decided  that  a  man  of  Bradlaugh's 
opinions  was  by  law  disqualified  from  affirming.  He  thus 
lost  his  seat,  but  was  promptly  re-elected.  Whereupon  the 
House  of  Commons  carried  a  resolution  that  he  be  not 
permitted  to  go  through  the  form  of  repeating  the  words  of 
the  Oath,  which,  as  far  as  Bradlaugh  was  concerned,  was  an 
absolutely  meaningless  formality,  and,  in  the  opinion  of 
many,  an  act  of  sheer  blasphemy.^ 

When  Bradlaugh  next  attempted  to  take  his  seat,  a 
further  resolution  was  carried  excluding  him  altogether  from 
the  House.  He  refused,  however,  to  acquiesce  in  this  view 
of  the  situation,  and,  after  giving  due  notice  of  his  intention 
to  the  Speaker,  forced  his  way  into  the  House,  whence  he 
was  removed  with  some  difficulty  by  the  Sergeant-at-Arms 
and  police. 

unsuccessful,  occurred  on  the  second  reading  of  the  Reform  Bill  in  1831. 
Lord  Brougham  spoke  for  four  hours,  fortified  by  frequent  draughts  of 
mulled  port.  At  the  end  he  exclaimed,  "  By  all  the  ties  that  bind  every 
one  of  us  to  our  common  order  and  our  common  country,  I  solemnly 
adjure  you — yea,  on  my  bended  knees,  I  supplicate  you — reject  not  this 
Bill !  "  With  these  words  he  fell  upon  his  knees,  and  remained  in  this 
attitude  so  long  that  his  friends,  fearing  that  he  was  suffering  as 
much  from  mulled  port  as  emotion,  picked  him  up  and  replaced  him  on 
the  Woolsack. 

*  Bradlaugh  is  not  the  only  politician  who  has  failed  to  interpret  the 
words  of  the  Oath  in  too  literal  a  sense.  Walpole  became  possessed  of 
some  treasonable  letters  written  by  William  Shippen,  a  Jacobite  and 
violent  opponent  of  his.  Walpole  sent  for  Shippen,  and  burnt  the 
incriminating  papers  in  his  presence.  Later  on,  when  Shippen  was  taking 
the  oath  of  allegiance  in  the  Commons,  Walpole,  who  stood  near  and 
knew  the  other's  principles  to  be  as  treasonable  as  ever,  smiled.  "  Egad  ! 
Robin,"  said  Shippen,  "  that's  hardly  fair  !  " 


150  THE   MOTHER   OF   PARLIAMENTS 

For  a  short  time  he  remained  quiet,  and  then  suddenly, 
in  1882,  he  reappeared  in  the  House  of  Commons,  walked 
alone  to  the  Table,  administered  the  oath  to  himself,  and 
claimed  the  right  to  sit.  Upon  a  motion  of  Sir  Stafford 
Northcote  he  was  once  more  expelled,  and  once  more  the 
electors  of  Northampton  returned  him  as  their  representative. 

During  the  two  following  years  Bradlaugh  brought  actions 
against  the  Sergeant-at-Arms  and  his  deputy,  and  tried  to 
induce  a  court  of  law  to  restrain  these  officials  from  carry- 
ing out  the  orders  of  the  House.  His  efforts,  however,  were 
vain,  the  courts  deciding  that  the  Commons  had  a  perfect 
right  to  control  their  own  internal  affairs. 

In  1884  he  again  entered  the  House  and  took  the  oath. 
He  was  again  excluded  from  the  precincts,  applied  for  the 
Chiltern  Hundreds,  and  was  again  returned  for  Northampton, 

Meanwhile  he  had  voted  in  several  divisions,  and  the 
Attorney-General,  on  behalf  of  the  Crown,  brought  an  action 
against  him  to  recover  three  separate  sums  of  ;^500,  as 
penalties  for  having  voted  without  previously  taking  the 
oath. 

For  two  more  years  the  conflict  continued  to  rage  round 
the  burly  figure  of  this  remarkable  man.  By  18S6,  however, 
the  Commons  had  grown  weary  of  this  ceaseless  and  sense- 
less persecution,  and  Bradlaugh  was  at  last  permitted  to  take 
his  seat  ;  and  in  1888  an  Act  was  passed  extending  the  right 
to  affirm  to  those  who  state  that  they  have  no  religious 
belief 

Parliament  thus  gradually  came  to  take  a  broader  view 
of  the  situation,  and  during  Bradlaugh's  absence,  in  1891, 
the  House  of  Commons  passed  a  resolution  expunging  from 
the  Journals  the  original  motion  whereby  he  was  prevented 
from  affirming.  Thus  ended  a  long  controversy,  in  the 
course  of  which  the  much-harassed  victim  had  behaved 
with  exemplary  self-control,  only  once  showing  signs  of 
annoyance,  when  the  rough  handling  to  which  he  was  sub- 
jected by  the  police  resulted  in  the  breakage  of  a  favourite 
stylographic  pen. 


THE   OPENING   OF   PARLIAMENT  151 

This  taking  of  the  oath  or  making  an  affirmation  at  the 
commencement  of  a  new  Parh'ament  is  the  only  introduction 
necessary  for  a  member  who  has  been  elected  during  the 
recess,  or  of  a  peer  who  has  succeeded  to  a  title. 

The  introduction  of  a  newly  created  peer,  or  of  one  who 
has  been  elevated  to  higher  rank,  is  a  ceremony  that  strikes 
the  spectator  as  quaint  or  impressive,  according  as  he  has  or 
has  not  a  sense  of  humour.  Attired  in  his  robes,  and  supported 
by  two  other  peers  of  his  own  degree,  who  act  as  his  sponsors, 
the  new  peer  walks  slowly  up  the  floor  of  the  House  of  Lords, 
preceded  by  a  procession  of  State  officers — Black  Rod,  Garter 
King-at-Arms,  the  Hereditary  Earl  Marshal  of  England,  and 
the  Lord  Great  Chamberlain,  in  full  dress. 

On  reaching  the  Woolsack  the  neophyte  falls  upon  one 
knee  and  presents  to  the  Lord  Chancellor,  and  receives  back 
from  him,  his  patent  of  peerage  and  his  writ  of  summons, 
both  of  which  are  read  aloud  by  the  Reading  Clerk.  The 
new  peer  then  takes  the  oath  and  signs  the  roll,  and  is  led 
by  his  supporters  and  the  officers  of  State  on  a  ceremonial 
pilgrimage  round  the  Chamber  to  the  bench  on  which  he  is 
by  rank  entitled  to  sit.  Here  the  three  peers  in  their  scarlet 
robes  scat  themselves.  They  are,  however,  only  allowed  a 
few  moments'  rest,  and  at  a  pre-concerted  signal  the  trio  rise 
together  and  lift  their  hats  in  unison  to  the  Chancellor,  who 
responds  in  similar  fashion.  Three  times  this  gesture  is 
repeated,  after  which  the  original  procession  is  reformed,  and 
the  new  peer  retires,  shaking  hands  with  the  Chancellor  on 
his  way. 

Much  the  same  procedure  is  followed  in  the  case  of  bishops, 
though  spiritual  peers  are  not  preceded  by  the  Great  Officers, 
nor  have  they  any  patent  to  present.  Representative  peers 
of  Scotland  or  Ireland  are  not  introduced  in  this  formal 
manner,  but  merely  take  the  oath  and  sign  the  roll. 

The  introduction  of  a  member  of  the  House  of  Commons, 
elected  in  the  course  of  the  session,  is  a  somewhat  similar  but 
less  formal  affair.  Accompanied  by  two  other  members  of 
Parliament  he  advances  up  the  floor  of  the  House,  "  making 


152  THE   MOTHER   OF   PARLIAMENTS 

his  obeisances  as  he  goes  up,  that  he  may  be  better  known 
to  the  House,"  and  frequently  evoking  cheers  from  the  party 
to  which  he  belongs.^  He  may  take  the  oath  at  any  time, 
if  the  Clerk  of  the  House  has  received  the  certificate  of  his 
return.  In  1875  Dr.  Kenealy,  whose  methods  of  conducting 
the  defence  of  the  notorious  Tichborne  claimant  had  alienated 
the  respect  of  most  right-thinking  men,  was  unable  to  per- 
suade any  member  to  introduce  him  in  the  House  of  Commons. 
At  last,  out  of  sheer  kindness  of  heart,  John  Bright  declared 
that  he  would  accompany  the  unpopular  member.  He  was 
not  called  upon  to  do  so,  however,  the  rule  being  in  this 
instance  dispensed  with,  at  Disraeli's  suggestion,  and  Kenealy 
walked  alone  to  the  Table. 

The  swearing  in  of  peers  and  members  occupies  several 
days,  and  by  the  time  this  task  is  accomplished  Parliament  is 
ready  to  listen  to  the  King's  Speech,  with  which  every  new 
session  is  opened. 

This  final  ceremony  is  a  State  function  of  the  most 
picturesque  and  spectacular  description.  The  road  leading 
from  Buckingham  Palace  to  Westminster  is  lined  with  troops  ; 
flags  fly  from  all  the  public  buildings  ;  the  pavements  and 
windows  along  the  route  are  packed  with  sightseers.  In  the 
famous  glass  coach,  drawn  by  the  fat  cream  ponies  so  dear 
to  the  heart  of  every  loyal  subject,  the  King  and  Queen  drive 
in  State  to  the  House  of  Lords.  Here  they  are  met  by  the 
Lord  Chancellor,  Purse  in  hand,  while  the  Great  Ofllicers  of 
State  form  a  long  procession  through  the  Royal  Gallery,  and 
precede  their  Majesties  into  the  Gilded  Chamber. 

The  House  presents  a  magnificent  spectacle.  Every 
bench  is  crowded  with  peers  in  their  scarlet  and  ermine 
robes.  At  their  sides  sit  the  peeresses  in  evening  dress, 
adorned,  according  to  custom,  with  feathers  and  veils,  while 
the  Woolsacks  in  the  centre  of  the  House  are  occupied 
by  the  Judges  arrayed  in  their  judicial  finery,  and  in  a  box 
at  one  side  are  the  Ambassadors  and  Ministers  of  Foreign 

'  Hatsell  adds  that  it  was  contrary  to  custom  for  members  so  intro- 
duced to  appear  in  top-boots.     Hatsell's  "  Precedents,''  vol.  ii.  p.  85. 


THE   OPENING   OF   PARLIAMENT  153 

Powers.^  The  galleries  are  filled  with  specially  privileged 
visitors  of  both  sexes,  and,  as  the  royal  procession  enters, 
the  whole  assembly  rises  to  its  feet  and  remains  standing 
until  their  Majesties  have  reached  the  two  thrones  at  one 
end  of  the  Chamber. 

On  taking  his  place  upon  the  throne,  the  King  bids  the 
peers  to  be  seated,  and,  through  the  Lord  Great  Chamberlain, 
commands  Black  Rod  to  inform  the  Commons  that  it  is  His 
Majesty's  pleasure  that  they  attend  him  immediately  in  the 
House  of  Lords.^ 

The  delivery  of  this  royal  message  to  the  Commons  is 
the  signal  for  a  stampede  of  members  towards  the  Upper 
House  ;  grave  politicians  vieing  with  one  another  in  the 
endeavour  to  be  first  at  the  Bar  of  the  Lords.  O'Connell 
compared  the  rush  of  members  on  such  occasions  to  that  of 
a  pack  of  boys  released  from  school,  scrimmaging  together 
to  get  out  of  the  class-room.  In  their  haste  to  arrive  at  the 
goal,  the  Commons  are  apt  to  hurry  the  unhappy  Speaker 
before  them  like  the  sacrificial  ox,  urged  along  reluctant  to 
the  horns  of  the  altar.^  The  rude  incursion  of  the  Commons 
once  provoked  the  Yeoman  of  the  Guard,  who  kept  the 
doors  of  the  Lords,  to  shut  it  in  their  faces.  "Goodmen 
burgesses,"  said  the  Sergeant  of  the  Guard,  in  1604,  "ye  come 
not  here  !  "  much  to  the  Commons'  indignation.*  Members 
have  often  had  their  clothes  torn  in  the  confusion  and  tumult 

'  Peeresses  cannot  claim  the  right  to  be  present,  but  are  allowed  to 
attend  in  accordance  with  a  privilege  of  long  standing,  which  adds  much 
to  the  beauty  of  the  ceremony.  Judges  have  always  enjoyed  the  right 
of  attendance.  In  old  days  they  took  a  prominent  part  in  the  public 
business  of  the  House,  but  were  not  regular  members,  and,  though  they 
gave  their  legal  opinions  upon  constitutional  questions  before  Parliament, 
could  neither  vote  nor  join  in  debate. 

■■^  If  Parliament  is  opened  by  Commission,  Black  Rod  is  sent  to  desire 
(not  to  commaiul)  the  attendance  of  the  Commons,  and  the  King's  Speech 
is  read  by  the  Lord  Chancellor. 

^  O'Connell's  "  Experiences,"  vol.  i.  p.  9. 

*  Hatsell  says  that  such  expressions  were  "very  opprobrious,"  and 
might  not  unfitly  have  been  applied  "  to  the  Peasants  of  France  or  the 
Boores  of  Germany."     "  Precedents,"  vol.  i.  p.  237. 


154  THE   MOTHER   OF   PARLIAMENTS 

of  this  rush,  and  one  at  least  has  suffered  a  dislocated 
shoulder.  Sir  Augustus  Clifford,  who  was  Black  Rod  in 
1832,  lost  his  hat  and  was  physically  injured  in  a  melie  on 
the  opening  day.  In  190 1,  the  first  opening  of  Parliament 
by  the  sovereign  in  a  new  reign,  after  a  long  discontinuance 
of  the  ceremony,  and  the  number  of  new  members  after  a 
general  election,  combined  to  make  the  occasion  excep- 
tional. In  spite  of  the  employment  of  eighty  extra  police, 
engaged  to  keep  the  way  clear  for  the  Speaker's  procession, 
several  persons  were  badly  hurt,  owing  to  the  overpowering 
rush  of  members  struggling  to  secure  the  limited  number 
of  places  available  below  the  Bar  of  the  Lords,  and  many 
policemen  lost  their  helmets  in  the  struggle.^ 

Headed  by  their  Speaker,  then,  the  Commons  surge  into 
the  Upper  Chamber,  and  stand  at  the  Bar,  awaiting  the 
reading  of  the  King's  Speech. 

The  anxiety  of  the  Commons  to  gain  good  places  from 
which  to  listen  to  the  Speech  is  all  the  greater  nowadays,  since 
it  has  ceased  to  be  customary  to  publish  it  beforehand.  In 
Walpolc's  time  the  Government  used  to  meet  at  the  Cockpit 
in  Whitehall  on  the  eve  of  the  opening  to  consider  the  royal 
speech.'-  This  practice  came  to  an  end  with  the  eighteenth 
century,  but  the  Speech  was  still  made  public  property  by 
being  sent  to  the  papers  on  the  evening  of  the  Ministerial 
and  Opposition  dinners  which  precede  the  opening  of 
Parliament.  It  is  still  read  aloud  by  the  official  hosts  at 
these  banquets,  but  does  not  appear  in  the  Press  on  the  follow- 

*  In  i860  such  occurrences  were  prevented  by  the  seats  being  balloted 
for  by  the  Commons.  "  The  faithful  Commons  being  elected  by  ballot," 
as  we  read  in  "The  Times  "  of  January  25,  "not  now  as  formerly  rushing 
in  like  the  gods  in  the  gallei^  on  Boxing  Night  ;  on  the  contrary,  they 
came  steadily  up  to  the  Bar,  the  Speaker  leading,  and  on  his  right  Lord 
Palmerston."  Today  the  system  of  balloting  is  again  employed,  and  a 
much  larger  space  both  on  the  ground  and  in  the  galleries  is  allotted  to 
the  Commons. 

-  The  Cockpit  was  pulled  down  in  1733,  but  the  name  continued  to  be 
given  to  the  Treasury  meeting-room.  See  Dodington's  "  Diary  "  :  "  Went 
to  the  Cockpit  to  a  prize  cause,"  p.  72  (1828). 


THE  OPENING   OF   PARLIAMENT  155 

ing  morning,  and  the  contents  of  the  Speech  are  not  made 
public  until  it  is  read  by  the  King  (or  the  Lords  Commis- 
sioners) at  the  Opening  of  Parliament.^  In  1756  a  spurious 
speech  was  published  and  circulated,  just  before  the  opening, 
much  to  the  annoyance  of  the  authorities.  King  George, 
however,  took  a  lenient  view  of  this  outrage.  He  even 
expressed  a  hope  that  the  Iprinters  might  not  be  too  severely 
punished.  He  had  read  both  speeches  carefully,  he  said,  and, 
as  far  as  he  could  understand  either,  infinitely  preferred  the 
spurious  one  to  his  own.^ 

The  King's  Speech  is  not  usually  a  very  remarkable 
production,  either  from  a  literary  or  any  other  point  of  view, 
though  many  of  those  for  which  Gladstone,  Disraeli,  or 
Lord  Salisbury  were  responsible  were  exceptionally  lucid 
and  well  written.  Macaulay  has  described  it  as  "  that  most 
unmeaningly  evasive  of  human  compositions."  As  a  rule, 
it  exudes  platitudes  at  every  paragraph  ;  its  phraseology  is 
florid  without  being  particularly  informing.  "  Did  I  deliver  the 
Speech  well  ? "  George  III.  inquired  of  the  Lord  Chancellor, 
after  the  opening  of  Parliament.  "Very  well,  Sire,"  was 
Lord  Eldon's  reply.  "  I  am  glad  of  it,"  answered  the  King, 
"  for  there  was  nothing  in  it !  "  ^  If  speech  was  given  us  to 
conceal  thought,  the  King's  Speech  may  often  be  said  to 
fulfil  its  mission  as  a  cloak  to  drape  the  mind  of  the  Ministry. 
Lord  Randolph  Churchill  once  declared  that  the  Cabinet  had 
spent  some  fifteen  hours  eliminating  from  it  anything  that 
might  possibly  have  any  meaning.  From  the  ambiguous 
suggestions  it  contains,  the  public  is  left  to  infer  the  exact 
form  of  legislation  foreshadowed.  The  -King's  Speech  is 
popularly  supposed  to  be  written  by  His  Majesty  himself. 
But  though  approved  by  him,  it  is  composed  by  the  Prime 

*  "  November  20,  1798.  Called  on  Sir  Francis  Burdett,  who  had  just 
been  reading  in  the  newspaper  the  King's  intended  Speech  to-day  (which 
for  some  sessions  past  has  been  pubHshed  the  morning  before  it  is  spoken)." 
Holcroft's  "  Memoirs,"  p.  229. 

-  It  was  burnt  by  the  hangman  in  Palace  Yard.  VValdegrave's 
•Memoirs,"  p.  89. 

3  Twiss's  "  Life  of  Eldon,"  vol.  ii.  p.  359. 


156  THE   MOTHER   OF   PARLIAMENTS 

Minister  and  the  Cabinet,  of  which  probably  each  member 
contributes  the  paragraphs  referring  to  his  own  department. 
It  expresses,  therefore,  the  Government's  rather  than  the 
sovereign's  views. 

Queen  Victoria  discontinued  the  reading  of  her  Speech 
after  the  death  of  the  Prince  Consort,  delegating  this  duty  to 
the  Lord  Chancellor.  Other  monarchs,  however,  have  usually 
been  their  own  spokesmen  on  this  occasion — sometimes  at 
great  personal  inconvenience.  William  IV.,  in  his  old  age, 
found  much  difficulty  in  reading  his  Speech,  one  gloomy 
winter's  afternoon.  The  light  in  the  Upper  House  was  so 
poor  that  he  could  scarcely  decipher  a  word,  and  he  was 
forced  to  refer  perpetually  for  assistance  to  Lord  Melbourne. 
At  last  two  wax  tapers  were  brought,  and  the  King,  quietly 
remarking  that  the  Speech  had  not  received  the  treatment 
that  it  deserved,  proceeded  to  read  it  right  through  again 
from  beginning  to  end. 

Another  royal  personage  treated  the  Speech  with  far  less 
respect.  George  IV.,  when  Prince  Regent,  is  said  to  have 
bet  Sheridan  a  hundred  guineas  that  he  would  introduce  the 
words  "  Baa,  baa,  black  Sheep  !  "  into  the  King's  Speech  with- 
out arousing  comment  or  surprise.  He  won  his  bet,  and 
afterwards,  when  Sheridan  asked  Canning  whether  he  did 
not  think  it  extraordinary  that  no  one  should  have  noticed 
so  strange  an  interpolation  :  "  Did  you  not  hear  His  Royal 
Highness  say,  '  Baa,  baa,  black  sheep  '  ?  "  he  asked.  "  Yes," 
replied  Canning;  "but  as  he  was  looking  straight  in  your 
direction  at  the  moment,  I  deemed  it  merely  a  personal 
allusion,  and  thought  no  more  about  it !  " 

After  the  delivery  of  the  King's  Speech,  His  Majesty 
and  the  other  members  of  the  Royal  Family  retire  from  the 
Chamber,  and  the  Commons  return  to  their  own  House. 
Here  the  Speaker  "  reports  "  or  reads  the  Speech  once  more. 
In  the  House  of  Lords  the  Chancellor  is  undertaking  a 
similar  duty,  standing  in  his  place  at  the  Woolsack.  Lords 
and  Commons  remain  uncovered  while  the  Speech  is  being 
read. 


THE   OPENING  OF   PARLIAMENT  157 

Before  this  happens,  however,  a  Bill  pro  fornid  is  read  a 
first  time  in  both  Houses,  on  the  motion  of  the  two  Leaders, 
as  a  sign  that  Parliament  has  a  right  to  deal  with  any  matter 
in  priority  to  those  referred  to  in  the  King's  Speech. 

When  this  formality  has  been  carried  out  and  the  Speech 
read,  an  Address  of  thanks  to  the  King  is  moved  by  two 
members  of  each  House.  The  motion  for  the  Address  is  pro- 
posed and  seconded  by  some  rising  young  politicians  selected 
by  the  Government,  who  are  thus  given  an  opportunity  of 
displaying  their  oratorical  prowess,  and  a  debate  ensues. 
The  debate  on  the  Address  originated  in  Edward  Ill's  reign, 
and  sometimes  lasted  two  or  three  days.  It  was  the  regular 
preliminary  of  Parliamentary  deliberations.  To-day  in  the 
Commons  it  occasionally  extends  over  a  whole  fortnight,  or 
even  longer. 

After  the  Address  has  been  agreed  to,  and  ordered  to  be 
presented  to  His  Majesty,  both  Houses  proceed  to  make 
various  arrangements  for  the  conduct  of  their  internal  affairs, 
committees  of  different  kinds  are  appointed,  and  other  pre- 
parations made  for  facilitating  the  labours  of  the  Legislature. 

Parliament  is  now  open,  and  the  serious  business  of  the 
Session  begins. 


CHAPTER   IX 

RULES   OF    DEBATE 

"  T  T  is  true,"  says  Bacon,  "  that  what  is  settled  by  custom, 
1  though  it  be  not  good,  at  least  is  fit.  It  were  good, 
therefore,  that  men  in  their  innovations  would  follow  the 
example  of  time  itself,  which,  indeed,  innovateth  greatly,  but 
quietly."  Parliament  has  certainly  acted  upon  this  advice, 
and  nowhere  is  the  steady  and  silent  legislation  by  precedent 
more  conspicuous  than  in  the  forms  which  govern  the  pro- 
cedure of  both  Houses.  Occasional  practices  have  become 
usages,  growing  with  the  growth  of  Parliament,  adapting 
themselves  imperceptibly  to  the  circumstances  which  at  once 
created  and  required  them,  "slowly  broadening  down  from 
precedent  to  precedent,"  like  that  national  freedom  of  which 
the  poet  sings. 

Parliament  has  kept  as  close  as  possible  to  the  wings  of 
Time,  and,  as  Plunket  said,  has  watched  its  progress  and 
accommodated  its  motions  to  their  flight,  varying  the  forms 
and  aspects  of  its  institutions  to  reflect  their  varying  aspects 
and  forms.  For  if  this  were  not  the  spirit  that  animated 
Parliament,  "  history  would  be  no  better  than  an  old 
almanack."^  In  spite  of  this,  however,  the  maxim  which 
Sir  Edward  Coke  declared  to  be  written  on  the  walls  of  the 
House  of  Commons,  that  old  ways  are  the  safest  and  surest 
ways,  still  prevails,  and  it  is  not  often  that  any  parlia- 
mentarian has  the  courage  to  say,  as  Phillips  said  to  Coke 

^  O'Flanagan's  "  Lives  of  the  Irish  Chancellors,"  vol.  ii.  p.  541.  (The 
same  simile  was  used  by  Boswell.  See  Croker's  "  Dr.  Johnson,"  vol.  iii. 
p.  41.) 

158 


RULES   OF   DEBATE  159 

on  a  memorable  occasion,  "  If  there  be  no  precedent  for  this, 
it  is  time  to  make  one"  ^ 

The  machine  of  a  free  constitution,  as  Burke  declared,  is 
no  simple  thing,  but  as  intricate  and  delicate  as  it  is  valuable  ; 
and  to  keep  that  machine  in  good  working  order,  to  make 
the  wheels  run  smoothly,  it  has  been  found  necessary  to  frame 
a  code  of  procedure  which  has  its  roots  in  the  traditions  and 
precedents  of  the  parliamentary  history  of  the  past  For 
hundreds  of  years  any  attempt  to  alter  the  ancient  procedure 
was  looked  upon  as  a  kind  of  sacrilege.  It  was  not  until  the 
Speakership  of  Shaw  Lefevre  that  any  serious  changes  were 
made  in  the  business  methods  of  Parliament,  and  Rules  and 
Standing  Orders  devised  to  expedite  business  and  reduce 
waste  of  time  to  a  minimum. 

The  maintenance  of  order  and  the  acceleration  of  business 
have  always  been  the  main  objects  sought  for,  for  which 
provision  is  now  made  in  the  Standing  Orders  of  both  Houses. 
These  have  been  revised  and  their  number  increased  from 
time  to  time,  no  fewer  than  twenty-one  committees  having 
been  appointed  between  the  years  1832  and  1881,  for  the 
sole  purpose  of  improving  the  procedure  of  the  House  of 
Commons.^ 

The  most  important,  perhaps,  are  those  which  refer  to 
speaking  in  debates — the  chief  duty  of  those  who  take  any 
part  in  the  deliberations  of  Parliament. 

Speeches  in  either  House  must  be  delivered  in  English 
and  extempore,  the  speaker  standing  uncovered  above  the  bar. 
Formerly,  when  the  House  of  Commons  was  in  Committee, 
members  could  speak  sitting,  and  nowadays  invalid  members 
are  usually  allowed  this  privilege.  Even  these,  however 
must  obey  the  rule  as  to  being  bareheaded.  The  only  occasion 
on  which  a  member  may — and  indeed  must — speak  sitting 
and  covered  is  during  a  division  when  a  question  of  order 
arises  upon  which  he  wishes  to  address  the  House.    Gladstone, 

*  Forster's  "  Sir  John  Eliot,"  vol.  i.  p.  405. 

2  Select  Committees  met  in  1837,  1848,  1854,  1861  and  1871,  and  a 
Joint  Committee  of  both  Houses  considered  the  question  in  1869. 


i6o  THE   MOTHER   OF   PARLIAMENTS 

who  never  wore  his  hat  in  the  House,  once  provoked  loud 
cries  of  "  Order  ! "  by  forgetting  this  last  rule.  Realising 
his  mistake,  he  hastily  borrowed  the  headgear  of  a  friend. 
Being,  however,  blessed  with  an  unusually  large  head,  his 
appearance  in  a  hat  several  sizes  too  small  for  him  caused 
much  amusement. 

Peers  and  members  occasionally  wear  their  hats  while 
sitting  in  their  respective  Houses,  as  a  protection  from  the 
glaring  light  or  from  the  extraordinary  draughts  caused  by 
the  modern  system  of  ventilation  ;  but  they  invariably  un- 
cover to  move  about  from  one  place  to  another.  They  also 
momentarily  remove  their  hats  when  the  Chancellor  or 
Speaker  enters,  or  when  a  message  from  the  Crown  is  read. 
It  is  customary,  too,  to  uncover  as  a  sign  of  respect  when 
a  vote  of  thanks  is  proposed  or  an  obituary  speech  made  in 
memory  of  a  deceased  statesman.  There  is  an  instance  in 
Stuart  days  of  a  member  expressing  his  disapproval  of  a  vote 
of  thanks  by  clasping  his  hands  upon  the  crown  of  his  hat 
and  cramming  it  down  over  his  eyes,  but  this  has  never  been 
repeated. 

The  Quaker  Pease  was  always  disinclined  to  comply  with 
the  rule  that  members  should  walk  about  the  House  un- 
covered. A  doorkeeper  was  therefore  instructed  to  remove 
this  member's  hat  quietly  as  he  entered,  and  keep  it  safely 
hidden  until  he  wished  to  leave.  After  a  time,  Pease  became 
accustomed  to  doing  this  for  himself,  and  the  doorkeeper  was 
relieved  of  his  duty.^ 

Disraeli,  like  Gladstone,  sat  bareheaded  in  the  House  of 
Commons,  but  kept  his  hat  under  his  seat  ready  for  an 
emergency.  It  was  then  the  general  custom  of  members  to 
wear  their  hats  in  the  House,  but  fashions  have  changed,  and 
Cabinet  Ministers  to-day  generally  leave  their  head-gear  in 
the  private  rooms  with  which  they  are  now  accommodated, 
while  humbler  legislators  make  use  of  the  hat-pegs  provided 
for  the  purpose  in  the  entrance  hall  of  both  Houses. 

In  the  Commons,  as  we  have  already  noted,  the  member 
^  Pryme's  "  Recollections,"  p.  220. 


RULES    OF   DEBATE  i6i 

who  first  catches  the  Speaker's  eye  has  the  prior  claim  to 
speak.  In  the  Lords  a  different  rule  obtains.  Should  two 
peers  rise  simultaneously,  one  usually  gives  way  to  the  other. 
Otherwise  the  House  decides,  if  necessary  by  a  division, 
which  of  the  two  is  to  address  it. 

In  the  House  of  Lords  peers  address  their  fellows  ;  in  the 
Commons  members  are  bidden  to  direct  their  remarks  to  the 
Speaker,  or  in  Committee  to  the  Chairman.  This  practice 
dates  from  the  old  days  when  the  Speaker  was  the  mouth- 
piece of  the  House  and  it  was  very  necessary  for  members  to 
make  clear  to  him  the  exact  nature  of  their  grievances  or 
petitions,  so  that  he  might  transfer  them  correctly  to  the 
Crown. 

In  the  Commons  the  rules  prescribe  that  no  reference  to 
previous  debates  of  the  same  Session  shall  be  made,  unless 
these  were  upon  the  subject  now  under  discussion.  It  is 
likewise  "  out  of  order "  to  read  from  a  newspaper  or  book 
any  printed  speech  made  within  the  same  Session.  No 
allusion  is  allowed  to  speeches  made  in  the  other  Chamber, 
the  idea  being  that  debates  are  secret  and  unknown.  This 
rule,  however,  is  neatly  evaded  by  the  simple  process  of 
referring  to  "  another  place,"  a  euphemism  under  which 
members  of  either  House  can  disguise  their  allusions  to  the 
proceedings  of  the  other. 

Seditious  or  treasonable  words  are  sternly  forbidden  in 
Parliament,  as  is  also  the  use  of  the  sovereign's  name  to 
influence  debates.  No  member  may  commit  contempt  of 
court  by  referring  to  matters  that  are  sub  jiidice,  nor  may  he 
insult  the  character  or  proceedings  of  either  House,  or  use  his 
right  of  speech  for  the  purpose  of  obstructing  public  business 
in  his  own. 

In  May,  1610,  "a  member  speaking,  and  his  Speech 
seeming  impertinent,  and  there  being  much  Hissing  and 
Spitting.  It  was  conceived  for  a  Rule,  that  Mr.  Speaker  may 
stay  hnpertinent  Speeches!'  ^  Thirty  years  later  an  order  of 
the  House  was  framed,  whereby,  "  If  any  touch  another  by 
*  Scobell's  "  Rules  and  Customs  of  Parliament,"  p.  19. 

M 


i62  THE   MOTHER   OF   PARLIAMENTS 

nipping  or  irreverent  speech,  the  Speaker  may  admonish 
him.  If  he  range  in  evil  words,  then  to  interrupt  him, 
saying :  *  I  pray  you  to  spare  those  words.' "  ^  Nowadays 
debate  must  be  relevant  to  the  matter  before  the  House,  and 
the  Speaker  may  not  only  call  upon  an  impertinent  or 
irrelevant  member  to  cease  speaking,  but  may  even  use  his 
discretion  as  to  refusing  to  propose  to  the  House  a  motion 
which  he  considers  to  be  of  a  purely  obstructive  character. 

Disorderly  conduct  in  Parliament  was  punishable  by  fine 
in  1640,  when  Strode,  ever  a  stickler  for  parliamentary 
decorum,  moved  that  "  every  one  coming  into  the  House  who 
did  not  take  his  place,  or  did,  after  taking  his  place,  talk  so 
loud  as  to  interrupt  the  business  of  the  House  from  being 
heard,  should  pay  a  shilling  fine,  to  be  divided  between  the 
sergeant  and  the  poor."  ^ 

Since  Strode's  day  a  number  of  further  regulations  have 
been  added  to  the  code  of  parliamentary  procedure,  but  the 
Speaker's  task  of  keeping  order  is  facilitated  by  the  desire  on 
the  part  of  every  member  to  uphold  the  authority  of  the 
Chair.  This  expresses  itself  in  the  courtesy  with  which  that 
piece  of  furniture,  or  rather,  its  occupant,  is  treated.  When- 
ever a  member  of  the  House  of  Commons  passes  the  Chair 
he  accords  it  a  slight  bow,  and  this  rule  is  never  willingly 
infringed.  He  bows  to  it  when  he  enters  the  chamber,  and 
again  when  he  leaves,  and  is  always  particularly  careful  not 
to  intercept  his  person  between  it  and  the  speaker  who 
happens  to  be  addressing  the  House.  In  the  Upper  House, 
the  Woolsack  is  treated  with  similar  deference,  no  lord 
knowingly  passing  between  it  and  any  other  lord  who  is 
speaking,  or  between  it  and  the  table.  There  being  no 
Speaker  authorized  to  keep  order  in  the  Lords,  when  "  heat 
is  engendered  in  debate,"  it  is  open  to  any  peer  to  move  that 
an  ancient  Standing  Order  referring  to  asperity  of  speech  be 
read  by  the  Clerk. 

•  "Orders,  Proceedings,  Punishments,  and  Privileges,"  etc.  ("Har- 
leian  Miscellany,"  vol.  v.  p.  259.) 

'^  Forster's  "  Grand  Remonstrance,"  p.  206  n. 


RULES   OF   DEBATE  163 

Whether  or  not  language  be  "  parh'amentary  "  is  always 
a  matter  difficult  to  determine.  In  the  House  of  Commons 
it  is  left  entirely  to  the  discretion  of  the  Chair.  Lord 
Melbourne  remembered  a  Speaker  ruling  it  out  of  order  to 
refer  to  any  one  as  "  a  member  of  the  Opposition."  ^  Even 
the  familiar  "  Hear  !  hear !  " — the  modern  version  of  "  Hear 
him !  "  which  was  the  sign  of  approbation  in  the  days  of  Pitt 
— has  been  ruled  to  be  disorderly,  if  uttered  in  an  offensive 
manner.  Major  O'Gorman  was  "  named  "  by  Speaker  Brand 
for  insisting  that  he  had  the  right  to  shout  "  Hear  !  hear ! " 
after  every  word,  every  semi-colon,  and  every  comma  of  a 
member's  speech.  In  1887,  Speaker  Peel  called  the  attention 
of  the  House  to  the  fact  that  "  Shame ! "  was  an  unparlia- 
mentary expression,  and  rebuked  an  Irish  member  for 
continuously  shouting  "Order!  Order!"  in  a  disorderly 
manner. 

Any  epithet  which  reflects  upon  the  character  of  a 
member  of  either  House,  or  upon  the  conduct  of  the  King 
or  of  others  in  high  places,  is  considered  to  be  disorderly, 
though  notice  is  not  always  taken  of  it.  In  1672,  on  the 
first  day  that  Lord  Shaftesbury  took  his  seat  as  Lord 
Chancellor,  the  Duke  of  York  called  him  a  rascal  and  a 
villain.  "  I  am  much  obliged  to  your  Royal  Highness  for 
not  calling  me  likewise  a  coward  and  a  Papist,"  was  the 
Chancellor's  urbane  reply.  When  Feargus  O'Connor,  in 
1848,  denying  the  charge  of  Republicanism  that  had  been 
brought  against  him,  said  that  he  didn't  care  whether  the 
Queen  or  the  devil  sat  on  the  Throne,  what  threatened  to 
develop  into  a  disagreeable  incident  was  averted  by  the 
pleasantries  of  the  Prime  Minister.  "  When  the  honourable 
gentleman  sees  the  sovereign  of  his  choice  on  the  throne 
of  these  realms,"  said  Peel,  "  I  hope  he  will  enjoy,  and  I  feel 
sure  he  will  deserve,  the  confidence  of  the  Crown ! " 

Matters  were  not  always  so  easily  smoothed  over.  In 
1675,  during  the  debate  on  the  Address,  Coke  was  com- 
mitted to  the  Tower  for  remarking,  "  I  hope  we  are  all 
•  Torrens'  "  Life  of  Melbourne,"  vol.  ii.  p.  375. 


i64  THE   MOTHER   OF   PARLIAMENTS 

Englishmen,  and  are  not  to  be  frightened  out  of  our  duty 
by  a  few  high  words  " — an  observation  which  was  con- 
sidered to  cast  a  reflection  upon  James  II.  In  1823  Canning 
stigmatized  as  "false"  a  statement  of  Brougham's,  and  for 
a  long  time  refused  to  withdraw  the  offensive  expression. 
The  worthy  PlimsoU  was  carried  away  by  feelings  of 
righteous  indignation  in  1S75,  and  referred  to  certain  ship- 
owners, who  were  also  members  of  the  House,  as  "  villains." 
It  was  not  until  a  week  later  that  he  could  be  induced  to 
apologise.  O'Connell  called  Lord  Alvanley  a  "bloated 
buffoon,"  and  declared  Disraeli  to  be  the  lineal  descendant  of 
the  impenitent  thief  on  the  Cross.^  Disraeli  himself,  in  1846, 
likened  Lord  John  Russell  to  a  vulture,  and  Mr.  Biggar  was 
termed  an  "  impudent  scoundrel  "  by  a  fellow-member  in 
1 88 1.  Nine  years  later  Dr.  Tanner  referred  to  Mr.  Matthews, 
the  Home  Secretary,  as  "  one  of  the  basest  and  meanest 
skunks  that  ever  sat  upon  that  bench " ;  and  among  the 
titles  which  have  been  freely  conferred  upon  Mr.  Chamberlain 

by  his  enemies,  "  Judas  "  and  "  d d  liar"  are  by  no  means 

the  most  opprobrious.  Such  language,  however,  is  mercifully 
rare,  and  no  modern  Prime  Minister  could  say,  as  Lord  North 
did  to  the  alderman  who  presented  a  petition  from  the 
electors  of  Billingsgate,  that  the  honourable  gentleman  spoke 
not  only  the  sentiments,  but  even  the  very  language  of  his 
constituents. 

A  member  may  not  speak  at  all  unless  a  question  is  before 
the  House,  or  he  intends  to  conclude  with  a  motion  or 
amendment ;  but  an  exception  is  made  in  favour  of  a  personal 
explanation,  or  of  a  question  of  privilege  suddenly  arising, 
which  commands  precedence  over  all  other  business. 
Questions  also  may  be  addressed  to  Ministers  before  public 

*  Grant's  "Recollections  of  the  House  of  Lords,"  p.  407.  Lord 
Alvanley  was  the  sporting  peer  who  out  hunting  met  a  well-known  West 
End  artist  in  pastry  who  was  having  some  trouble  with  his  horse.  "  I 
can't  hold  him,"  said  the  confectioner,  "he's  so  devilish  hot!"  "Why 
don't  you  ice  him,  Mr.  Gunter?"  said  Lord  Alvanley. — (Maddyn's 
"  Chiefs  of  States,"  vol.  ii.  p.  214.) 


RULES   OF   DEBATE  165 

business  commences,  and  the  latter  may  make  statements  of 
public  interest. 

Save  when  the  House  is  in  Committee,  a  member  or  peer 
is  not  allowed  to  speak  twice  upon  the  same  question,  unless 
on  a  point  of  order,  or  to  explain  some  unintelligible  portion 
of  a  first  speech.  If,  however,  he  has  moved  a  substantive 
motion,  he  has  a  right  of  reply  at  the  end  of  the  debate. 
Once  when  Lord  North  was  speaking,  a  dog  ran  barking 
into  the  House.  "  Mr.  Speaker,"  said  the  Prime  Minister,  "  I 
am  interrupted  by  a  new  member !  "  The  dog  was  eventually 
driven  out  with  some  difficulty,  but  shortly  afterwards  re- 
entered by  another  door,  when  it  began  barking  as  loudly  as 
ever.  Lord  North  remarked  dryly  that  the  new  member  had 
spoken  once  already,  and  was  consequently  violating  the 
rules  of  the  House.^ 

In  the  House  of  Lords  peers  speak  of  one  another  by 
name,  but  in  the  Commons  it  is  the  custom  to  refer  to 
colleagues  by  their  constituencies,  as  "  the  Honourable  (or 
Right  Hon.)  gentleman,  the  member  for  Hull  (or  West 
Birmingham,  etc.)."  The  title  "honourable"  is  always  used 
in  conjunction  with  a  member's  name,  but  should  be  reinforced 
by  the  epithet  "  gallant  "  or  "  learned  "  in  the  case  of  a  naval 
(or  military)  member,  or  of  a  lawyer.^ 

It  was  not  until  after  the  Reform  Act  of  1832  that  the 
practice  of  referring  to  members  by  their  constituencies 
came  into  fashion.  In  Stuart  days  it  was  not  customary 
to  mention  either  the  names  or  the  constituencies  of  members. 
They  were  simply  referred  to  as  "  the  gentleman  on  the  other 
side  of  the  way,"  "the  member  that  last  spake,"  etc.  Nowa- 
days it  is  usual  to  talk  of  a  member,  if  on  the  same  side  of 
the  House,  as  "  my  honourable  friend  "  ;  and  if  on  the  opposite 

*  Harford's  "  Recollections  of  Wilberforce,"  p.  93.  An  exception  to 
this  rule  was  made  on  November  4,  1909,  when,  in  accordance  with  the 
general  wish  of  the  House,  the  Speaker  permitted  the  Prime  Minister 
and  the  Leader  of  the  Opposition  to  speak,  although  both  had  already 
joined  in  the  debate  on  the  previous  night. 

^  Sir  Wilfred  Lawson  was  once  sarcastically  referred  to  as  **the 
honourable  and  amusing  baronet "  (See  "  Men  and  Manners,"  p.  152.) 


i66  THE   MOTHER   OF   PARLIAMENTS 

side,  as  "the  honourable  gentleman  (or  member)."  But 
opponents  sometimes  publicly  include  one  another  within 
the  sacred  circle  of  honourable  friendship,  though  politically 
they  may  be  the  bitterest  enemies. 

There  is  no  rule  of  procedure  regulating  the  length  of 
speeches  in  either  House.  A  man  may  speak  for  as  long 
as  he  likes,  the  only  limit  being  set  by  his  own  powers  of 
endurance  or  the  patience  of  his  audience  ;  but  his  remarks 
must  be  relevant  "  If  any  speak  too  long,  and  speak 
ivithin  the  matter,  he  may  not  be  cut  off ;  but  if  he  be 
long,  and  oitt  of  the  matter,  then  may  the  Speaker  gently 
admonish  him  of  the  shortness  of  the  time,  or  the  business 
of  the  House,  and  pray  him  to  make  as  short  he  may."  ^ 
As  a  matter  of  practice  his  fellow-members  will  probably 
have  admonished  him  of  the  shortness  of  the  time  long  before 
by  shouting  "  'Vide  !  'Vide  ! "  until  he  brings  his  speech  to 
a  welcome  close. 

The  determination  to  proceed  in  spite  of  this  hint  that 
his  efforts  are  unappreciated  only  increases  the  uproar, 
for,  as  Burke  once  said,  the  House  of  Commons  has  an 
intense  dislike  for  anything  resembling  obstinacy.^  A 
Khedive  of  Egypt,  who  visited  the  House  of  Commons  at 
the  beginning  of  the  nineteenth  century,  and  listened  with 
surprise  to  the  deafening  noise  made  by  a  political  audience, 
came  to  the  conclusion  that  the  shouting  of  "  'Vide  !  "  was  the 
ordinary  English  mode  of  expressing  intense  boredom.  On  his 
return  to  Egypt  he  suffered  much  from  the  protracted  inter- 
views which  he  was  compelled  to  grant  to  Sir  John  Bowring, 
a  prosy  talker,  who  had  been  sent  to  Cairo  in  1837  on  a 
commercial  mission.  The  Khedive's  patience  finally  be- 
came exhausted,  and  one  day,  while  Sir  John  was  as  usual 

'  "  Orders,  Proceedings,  Punishments,  and  Privileges  of  the 
Commons  "  ("  Harleian  Miscellany,"  vol.  v.  p.  8). 

-  "  The  House  has  a  character  of  its  own.  Like  all  great  public 
collections  of  men,  it  possesses  a  marked  love  of  virtue  and  an  abhorrence 
of  vice.  But  among  vices  there  is  none  which  the  House  abhors  in  the 
same  degree  with  obstinacy^''  ("Works  and  Correspondence,"  vol.  iii. 
p.  215). 


RULES   OF   DEBATE  167 

addressing  him  at  unconscionable  length,  His  Highness  began 
exclaiming  "  'Vide  !  'Vide  !  'Vide  ! "  and  continued  doing 
so  until  his  visitor  was  reduced  to  silence. 

The  words  of  Speaker  Spencer  Compton  have  often  been 
quoted  to  show  that  members  are  acting  within  their  rights 
in  preventing  the  delivery  of  a  speech ;  that,  as  Bright  said, 
the  House  can  employ  noise  "  as  a  remedy  "  against  a  dull 
or  prolix  speaker.  A  member  appealed  to  Compton  to 
restore  order,  urging  that  he  had  a  right  to  be  heard.  "  No, 
sir,"  replied  the  Speaker,  "  you  have  a  right  to  speak,  but  the 
House  has  a  right  to  judge  whether  they  will  hear  you!" 
This,  according  to  so  great  an  authority  as  Hatsell,  was 
an  altogether  wrong  decision,  the  Speaker's  chief  duty  being 
to  keep  the  House  attentive  and  quiet. 

In  the  House  of  Lords,  where  there  is  no  Speaker  to 
curtail  a  lengthy  or  irrelevant  speech,  any  peer  may  propose 
that  the  noble  lord  who  is  on  his  legs  "  be  no  longer  heard  " 
— a  disagreeable  but  effective  way  of  informing  a  bore  of  his 
prolixity.^  This  method  was  unsuccessfully  tried  in  the 
Commons  in  1880.  O'Donnell  had  put  down  a  question 
asking  whether  M.  Challemel  Lacour,  the  prospective  French 
Ambassador  at  the  Court  of  St.  James's,  had,  "as  one  of  the 
Prefects  of  the  Provisional  Government  of  September  4,  1870, 
ordered  the  massacre  of  Colonel  Latour's  battalion,  and  had 
been  fined  ^^3000  by  a  Court  of  Justice  for  plundering  a  con- 
vent." Gladstone  moved  that  the  honourable  member  "  be 
no  longer  heard ; "  but  the  Speaker,  on  being  appealed  to, 
stated  that  this  was  an  unusual  course,  which  had  certainly 
not  been  adopted  for  at  least  two  hundred  years.  A  "scene  " 
ensued,  and  finally  O'Donnell  was  induced  to  put  down  the 
question  again  for  a  later  date.  Before  this  day  arrived,  how- 
ever, the  Speaker  tactfully  managed  to  suppress  the  question 
altogether,  as  being  "  beyond  the  cognisance  of  the  House  or 
the  Queen's  Government." 

Occasional  efforts  have  been  made  to  stem  the  flow  of 

'  The  last  instance  of  this  occurred  on  May  6,  1884,  when  Lord 
Waveney  was  addressing  the  House. 


i68  THE   MOTHER   OF   PARLIAMENTS 

parliamentary  eloquence  in  the  Commons,  but  without  much 
success.  The  late  Sir  Came  Rasch  tried  for  years  to  shorten 
speeches,  but  in  vain.  Mr.  Hogan  sought  to  introduce  the 
New  Zealand  scheme,  whereby  the  Speaker  rings  a  bell  when 
any  member  has  spoken  for  twenty  minutes  ;  but  though 
Mr.  Balfour  declared  that  twenty  minutes  erred  on  the  side  of 
generosity,  nothing  came  of  this  suggestion.  In  spite  of  a 
good  deal  of  unnecessary  talking,  the  House  of  Commons 
gets  through  a  lot  of  work,  though  there  is  no  doubt  that, 
as  Bright  said,  more  business  could  be  done  if  so  much  time 
were  not  wasted  in  unprofitable  eloquence.^  Dr.  Johnson, 
visiting  a  musical  family  of  his  acquaintance,  suggested  that 
they  should  all  perform  together.  "  There  will  then,"  he 
explained,  "be  more  noise,  but  it  will  be  sooner  over." 
Similar  suggestions  have  been  made  with  regard  to  the  House 
of  Commons,  but  the  question  of  stifling  parliamentary 
loquacity  remains  unsolved. 

When  such  loquacity  was  deliberately  employed  to  delay 
business,  obstruction  took  various  forms,  of  which  the  favourite 
one  a  few  years  ago  consisted  of  motions  to  adjourn  the  debate 
or  adjourn  the  House.  Sheridan  once  made  this  motion  nine- 
teen successive  times,  until  members  were  so  tired  of  tramping 
through  the  lobbies  that  they  gave  in  and  went  home.'-^  In 
1831,  on  July  I2th,  the  opponents  of  the  Reform  Bill  saw 
that  their  only  hope  lay  in  retarding  the  business  of  the 
House.  They  set  about  to  force  a  division  on  repeated 
motions  for  adjournment,  and  it  was  not  until  7.30  a.m.  of 
the  following  day  that  the  Commons  at  length  adjourned. 
Sir  Charles  Wetherell,  who  led  the  Opposition  on  this  occasion, 

*  "  I  must  say  that  it  (the  House  of  Commons)  would  be  a  better 
machine  if  men  were  a  little  less  vain,  and  would  adopt  a  policy  of  silence. 
If  they  would  be  anxious  to  get  through  the  business  of  the  House  without 
so  much  anxiety  for  self-exhibition  as  I  have  sometimes  observed,  I 
think  the  House  of  Commons  might  do  a  good  deal  more  work,  and  very 
much  better  work  than  it  does  at  present." — Speech  at  the  Fishmongers' 
Hall,  April  27,  1881. 

-  Grant's  "  Recollections,"  p.  53.  Nowadays  no  member  can  make 
this  motion  more  than  once. 


RULES   OF   DEBATE  169 

came  out  of  the  House  to  find  that  it  was  raining  hard.  "  By 
God  !  "  said  he,  "  if  I'd  known  this,  they  should  have  had  a  few 
more  divisions  !  "  ^ 

In  1833,  ^"d  again  ten  years  later,  the  Irish  party  resisted 
two  Bills  by  this  means,  on  the  latter  occasion  calling  for  no 
less  than  forty-four  divisions.  And  when  the  Copyright  Bill  of 
1839  was  being  debated,  a  minority  of  nine  members  com- 
pelled one  hundred  and  twenty-seven  of  their  colleagues  to 
divide  sixteen  times. 

There  is,  as  Gladstone  said,  no  art  or  science  which  has 
made  such  advance  in  modern  times  as  has  that  of  parlia- 
mentary obstruction.  Gladstone  himself  resolutely  and  syste- 
matically obstructed  the  passage  of  the  Divorce  Bill,  as  Sir 
Robert  Peel  before  him  had  obstructed  Lord  Grey's  Reform 
Bill.  These  statesmen,  however,  employed  a  recognised  form 
of  opposition  to  some  particular  measure.  It  was  left  for  the 
Irish  party  to  devise  a  system  of  regular  opposition  to  the 
conduct  of  any  parliamentary  business  whatsoever. 

Parnell's  knowledge  of  the  rules  of  debate  was  extensive  and 
peculiar.  He  himself  acted  upon  the  advice  which  he  once 
gave  to  a  new  member  when  he  told  him  that  the  best  way 
to  learn  the  regulations  of  the  House  was  by  breaking  them. 
It  was  he  who  originated  the  idea  of  employing  what  he  called 
"  the  sacred  right  of  obstruction  "  as  a  protest  against  the 
alleged  Government  neglect  of  Irish  grievances.  He  sought 
by  this  means  to  show  that,  though  his  party  was  not  power- 
ful enough  to  carry  through  its  own  work  properly,  it  was 
sufficiently  strong  to  prevent  the  English  Government  from 
doing  any  work  at  all.  In  this  way  he  no  doubt  thought  to 
carry  out  the  last  wishes  of  Grattan,  and  to  "  keep  knocking 
at  the  Union." 

The  forms  of  the  House  of  Commons,  as  Sir  George 
Cornwall  Lewis  has  said,  were  avowedly  contrived  for  the 
protection  of  minorities  ;  and  they  are  so  effectual  for  their 
purpose  as  frequently  to  defeat  the  will  of  the  great  body  of 
the  House,  and  enable  a  few  members  to  resist,  at  least  for  a 

1  Molesvvorth's  "  History  of  the  Reform  Bill,"  p.  214. 


I/O  THE   MOTHER   OF   PARLIAMENTS 

time,  a  measure  desired  by  the  majority.^  The  Irish  have,  of 
course,  always  been  dissatisfied.  If  they  had  happened  to  be 
in  the  wilderness  with  Moses,  as  Bright  once  observed,  they 
would  probably  have  complained  of  the  Ten  Commandments 
as  a  harassing  piece  of  legislation — and  not  altogether  without 
justification.  But  in  1874,  when  they  adopted  the  attitude  of 
antagonism  to  the  transaction  of  all  business,  obstruction  in 
such  a  form  as  this  was  a  novelty,  and  their  more  constitu- 
tionally-minded leader,  Butt,  repudiated  Parnell  and  his 
methods.  The  latter  was  not  to  be  moved  from  his  purpose, 
however,  and  with  half  a  dozen  intrepid  and  obstinate  fol- 
lowers continued  the  practice  of  an  organized  plan  of  obstruc- 
tion, of  which  the  only  flattering  thing  that  can  be  said  is  that 
it  was  for  a  long  time  completely  successful. 

Parnell  himself  deliberately  expressed  his  satisfaction  in 
thwarting  the  Government  and  preventing  the  progress  of 
parliamentary  business.  He  gloried  in  his  offence,  thinking 
very  probably  that  England's  difficulty  was  Ireland's  oppor- 
tunity. On  sixty-nine  occasions  in  1877,  when  the  House  of 
Commons  was  forced  to  divide,  the  minorities  never  consisted 
of  more  than  eleven  members,  and  in  one  hundred  divisions 
they  did  not  exceed  twenty-one.  Parnell  addressed  the  House 
five  hundred  times  in  the  session  of  1879,  constantly  repeating 
the  same  arguments,  raising  points  which  had  already  been 
ruled  out  of  order,  making  a  variety  of  frivolous  objections, 
and  showing  in  a  hundred  ways  that  his  evident  desire  was 
merely  to  waste  the  time  of  Parliament. 

Owing  to  obstructive  Irish  tactics,  the  Land  Act  of  1S81 
required  no  less  than  fifty-eight  sittings  before  it  could  be 
passed.  In  the  same  year  the  climax  of  obstruction  was 
reached,  and  it  became  obvious  that  some  measures  must  be 
taken  to  prevent  the  continuation  of  such  a  state  of  affairs. 
On  January  31,  which  was  a  Monday,  the  House  of  Commons 
met  at  4.30  p.m.  and  sat  without  interval  until  9.30  a.m.  on 
the  following  Wednesday.  But  for  the  intervention  of  the 
Chair,  the  sitting  might  have  been  prolonged  indefinitely. 
^  See  "  Influence  of  Authority  in  Matters  of  Opinion,"  p.  219. 


RULES   OF   DEBATE  171 

Fortunately,  Speaker  Brand  was  a  strong  man,  and  had 
privately  determined  to  put  a  stop  to  a  condition  of  things 
which  was  bringing  the  House  into  contempt  and  threatening 
the  complete  breakdown  of  all  legislative  business. 

On  resuming  the  Chair  on  the  Wednesday  morning,  the 
Speaker  rose  and  addressed  the  House  in  a  carefully  prepared 
speech.  He  began  by  expressing  his  unqualified  disapproval 
of  the  continual  obstruction  of  a  stubborn  and  inconsiderable 
minority,  whereby  the  ordinary  rules  of  procedure  had  been 
rendered  ineffective,  and  the  dignity  of  the  House  endangered. 
Acting  on  his  own  responsibility,  he  declared  that  a  new 
course  was  imperatively  demanded.  He  declined  therefore 
to  call  upon  any  more  members  to  speak,  and  proceeded  to 
"  put  the  question,"  relying  upon  the  House  to  support  him 
in  this  unusual  act. 

The  Speaker  had  accurately  gauged  the  "sense  of  the 
House"  ;^  his  solution  of  the  difficulty  was  loudly  applauded, 
save  of  course  upon  the  Irish  benches,  and,  after  a  sitting 
that  had  lasted  for  over  forty-one  consecutive  hours,  weary 
members  were  at  last  enabled  to  enjoy  a  well-earned  repose. 

Shortly  after  this  memorable  scene,  a  new  set  of  rules  was 
framed,  restricting  debate  on  all  dilatory  motions,  and  pre- 
venting any  member  from  making  them  more  than  once. 
The  authority  of  the  Speaker  also  was  increased,  and  it  was 
made  optional  for  him  to  put  the  question  forthwith,  if  he 
thought  the  rules  were  being  abused.  He  was  also  endowed 
with  the  power  of  at  any  time  silencing  an  unruly  or 
obstructive  member. 

In  1882,  Gladstone  proposed  an  alteration  of  the  Procedure 
Regulations,  which  allowed  the  Speaker  or  Chairman,  when 
a  subject  had  been  adequately  discussed,  and  it  was  evidently 
the  sense  of  the  House  that  the  question  be  put,  so  to  inform 

'  With  regard  to  those  well-worn  expressions,  the  "  sense ''  of  the 
House  and  the  "  feeling  "  of  the  House,  it  has  been  stated  that  the  House 
of  Commons  has  more  sense  and  feeling  than  any  one  who  sits  upon  its 
benches  :  "  The  collective  wisdom  of  Parliament  exceeds  the  wisdom  of 
any  single  head  therein." 


172  THE   MOTHER   OF   PARLIAMENTS 

the  House  ;  and,  if  a  motion  to  this  effect  was  put  and  carried, 
supported  by  more  than  two  hundred  members,  or  supported 
by  one  hundred  and  opposed  by  less  than  forty,  the  question 
was  to  be  put  forthwith.  This  "  Closure  "  rule  was  amended 
six  years  later,  when  it  was  resolved  that,  after  a  question  had 
been  proposed,  any  member  could  move  that  "  the  question 
be  now  put,"  and,  with  the  Speaker's  approval,  this  motion 
might  be  put  without  debate,  provided  that  in  the  division 
not  less  than  one  hundred  members  voted  in  its  support. 

Still  more  stringent  regulations  have  since  been  made  to 
thwart  the  obstructive  tendencies  of  a  certain  section  of  every 
Opposition.  By  a  recent  Standing  Order,  the  end  of  a  debate 
may  be  fixed  by  resolution  of  the  House  for  a  certain  hour 
and  date,  and,  if  the  subject  is  not  disposed  of  by  that  time, 
the  undiscussed  remainder  must  be  decided  by  a  vote  upon 
which  there  can  be  no  debate.  This  is  known  as  the 
"guillotine"  or  "closure  by  compartments,"  and  has  been 
commented  on  adversely  by  all  minorities  and  sedulously 
practised  by  every  Government  since  its  inception. 

In  spite,  however,  of  the  many  efforts  which  have  been 
made  to  accelerate  business,  the  parliamentary  machine  moves 
but  slowly,  and  the  time  spent  in  discussing  any  measure  to 
which  there  is  active,  sincere,  and  persistent  opposition  shows 
no  signs  of  diminishing  in  length.  Thus,  while  the  Home 
Rule  Bill  of  1893  required  iSo  divisions,  the  Education  Bill 
of  1902  required  295  ;  and  over  the  Finance  Bill  of  1909 
Parliament  spent  something  like  73  days  (or  740  hours)  and 
divided  no  less  than  420  times. 


CHAPTER  X 

PARLIAMENTARY    PRIVILEGE   AND 
PUNISHMENT 

PARLIAMENT  has  ever  been  most  tenacious  of  its 
historic  and  traditionary  rights  and  privileges.  Of 
these,  freedom  of  speech  and  freedom  from  arrest  may- 
be considered  the  most  important.  The  right  of  personal 
access  to  the  Crown  is  claimed  by  peers,  any  one  of  whom 
may  demand  a  private  audience  with  the  sovereign,  and, 
though  the  Commons  are  not  granted  a  similar  privilege,  it  is 
permissible  for  them  to  accompany  their  Speaker  when  he 
presents  an  address  to  the  King,  and  to  wear  ordinary  dress 
on  such  an  occasion. 

In  olden  days  peers  enjoyed  other  indulgences  denied  to 
their  humbler  brethren.  They  were,  for  instance,  permitted 
to  kill  deer  in  the  King's  forests  whenever,  in  obedience  to 
a  royal  summons,  they  journeyed  to  or  from  the  sovereign. 
At  such  times  the  bag  was  limited  to  two  deer,  and  these 
might  only  be  slain  in  the  presence  of  the  King's  Forester. 
If  that  official  were  not  at  hand,  the  sporting  peer  was 
enjoined  to  blow  several  loud  blasts  upon  his  hunting-horn 
before  pursuing  his  quarry  to  the  death.^  Peers  were  further 
allowed  "benefit  of  clergy,"  in  the  good  old  days,  for  such 
crimes  as  highway  robbery,  horse-stealing  and  house-breaking, 
but  only  for  a  first  offence.  If  they  took  up  burglary  as 
a  hobby,  or  if  the  robbery  of  churches  became  with  them 
a  daily  habit,  they  could  no  longer  escape  from  the  con- 
sequences of  their  misdeeds,  and  were  haled  to  prison  just  as 

'  Pike's  "  Constitutional  History,"  p.  267. 
173 


174  THE   MOTHER   OF   PARLIAMENTS 

though  they  had  been  mere  ordinary  mortals.  "  Benefit 
of  clergy  "  was  a  privilege  which  was  repealed  by  Act  of 
Parliament  in  i8oi,  and  a  peer  to-day  cannot  steal  a  single 
gold  watch  with  impunity. 

Exemption  from  arrest  on  a  civil  process  during  the 
session,  or  for  forty  days  before  and  after,  is  a  privilege  which 
members  of  the  House  of  Commons  as  well  as  the  Lords 
have  always  enjoyed.^  It  extended  to  their  estates  until  1857, 
and  to  their  servants  until  1892.  This  immunity  does  not, 
however,  extend  to  breaches  of  the  criminal  law,  nor  can  it 
be  claimed  in  the  case  of  an  indictable  offence  or  of  contempt 
of  court,  its  original  object  being  merely  to  secure  freedom 
of  arrival  and  attendance.  The  Speaker  of  the  Commons, 
Thomas  Thorpe,  who  was  summoned  in  Henry  VI.'s  time 
for  carrying  away  certain  goods  and  chattels  from  the  Bishop 
of  Durham's  Palace,  was  fined  ;^ICXX),  and  committed  to  the 
Fleet  until  this  sum  should  be  paid.  The  question  of 
privilege  was  raised,  but  the  House  of  Lords  decided  that 
the  culprit  must  remain  in  prison,  and  the  Commons  were 
directed  to  elect  another  Speaker. 

In  the  early  days  of  Parliament,  privilege  from  arrest  was 
generally  enforced  by  a  resolution  of  the  House  or  by  a 
Chancery  writ,  though  there  is  at  least  one  instance  of  a 
member  being  released  without  any  such  formality.  This 
occurred  in  the  case  of  a  member  named  Ferrers,  who  had 
been  arrested  for  debt  by  the  Sheriff  of  London  in  1543. 
The  Sergeant-at-Arms  who  went  to  demand  his  release  was 
illtreated,  and  sent  back  empty-handed.  The  House  there- 
upon summoned  the  sheriff  to  the  Bar,  and  with  him  the 
creditor  who  had  sued  Ferrars,  and  committed  both  to 
prison. 

In  1575  the  privilege  was  extended,  the  servants  of 
members  of  the  House  of  Commons  being  included  within 
the  pale  of  its  protection.  This  naturally  led  to  many  abuses, 
culminating  in  the  case  of  the  notorious  Colonel  Wanklyn. 
This  member  gave  a  signed  "  protection  "  to  a  wealthy  friend 
*  Peeresses  may  also  claim  this  as  a  right. 


PRIVILEGE  AND   PUNISHMENT  175 

whom  he  falsely  named  as  his  servant  in  order  to  enable  him 
to  escape  the  payment  of  a  debt  which  he  owed  to  his  own 
wife.  The  fraud  being  made  public,  the  culprit  was  expelled 
from  the  House,  and  went  away  weeping  bitterly,  "to  the 
scandal  of  his  brother  officers."  *  In  the  same  year  a  man 
named  Smalley,  the  servant  of  Arthur  Hall,  member  for 
Grantham,  was  arrested  for  debt  and  released  by  the  Speaker's 
order.  It  was  afterwards  discovered  that  he  had  arranged 
his  arrest  so  as  to  elude  his  financial  liabilities,  and  the 
indignant  House  ordered  him  to  be  imprisoned  and  fined 
;^I00.^  Further  discredit  was  cast  upon  one  of  the  ancient 
privileges  of  Parliament  by  another  member  named  Benson, 
who  was  found  guilty  of  selling  "  protections  "  at  sixteen 
shillings  apiece,  and  was  turned  out  of  the  House. 

If  the  Commons  were  justly  severe  in  their  treatment  of 
members  who  abused  this  particular  privilege,  they  punished 
with  even  greater  severity  any  unfortunate  persons  who 
attempted  to  violate  it.  In  1584  an  official  of  the  mighty 
Star  Chamber  was  committed  to  the  Tower  for  daring  to 
serve  a  subpoena  on  a  member  of  Parliament.  At  the  begin- 
ning of  the  next  century,  two  officers  who  had  arrested  a 
member's  servant  were  condemned  to  ride  together  upon 
a  single  horse,  back  to  back,  through  the  streets  of  London. 
In  this  insecure  and  undignified  position  they  were  taken 
from  Westminster  to  the  Exchange,  wearing  upon  their 
breasts  a  placard  inscribed  with  their  offence,  an  awful 
example  to  all  who  would  dream  of  laying  hands  on  the 
sacred  persons  of  parliamentarians  or  their  dependents. 

The  immunity  which  members  had  hitherto  enjoyed  was 
slightly  modified  in  1700,  when  an  Act  was  passed  permitting 
civil  suits  to  be  commenced  against  them  after  a  dissolution 
or  prorogation,  or  during  any  adjournment  of  more  than 
fourteen  days.  Later  on,  in  George  III.'s  reign,  their  privi- 
leges were  still  further  curtailed,  their  persons  alone  being 
held  sacred,  and  that  for  a  period  of  only  forty  days  before  or 

*  Townsend's  "  History,"  vol.  i.  p.  253. 
2  Raikes's  "  Journal,"  vol.  i.  p.  320. 


176  THE   MOTHER   OF   PARLIAMENTS 

after  the  meeting  of  Parliament.  Use  was  still  made  of  this 
privilege  as  a  shield  from  the  power  of  the  law,  and  as  late  as 
1807  there  are  instances  of  the  unscrupulous  purchase  of 
seats  in  the  Commons  for  the  sole  purpose  of  obtaining 
release  from  prison  or  escaping  the  payment  of  debt. 

To  this  day  members  of  Parliament  are  safe  from  arrest 
within  the  precincts  of  the  Palace  of  Westminster.  Irish 
members  who  had  been  convicted  under  the  Coercion  Act, 
in  the  palmy  days  of  the  Land  League,  found  in  the  House  of 
Commons  a  useful  if  only  temporary  sanctuary.  Dr.  Tanner 
took  his  seat  there  at  a  time  when  a  warrant  for  his  arrest 
had  been  issued,  and  it  was  not  until  the  adjournment  of 
the  House  and  the  return  to  his  hotel  of  this  member,  so 
badly  "wanted  by  the  police,"  that  he  could  be  lawfully 
apprehended. 

The  jealous  care  with  which  Parliament  guarded  its  rights 
in  olden  days  often  threatened  to  bring  the  very  name  of 
privilege  into  contempt.  The  Commons  especially  acquired 
the  pernicious  habit  of  voting  that  whatsoever  displeased 
them  was  an  insult  to  Parliament,  requiring  instant  and 
drastic  punishment.  Books  or  sermons  which  criticized  or 
reflected  upon  the  doings  of  either  House  were  condemned 
wholesale,  confiscated,  and  publicly  burnt  by  the  common 
hangman  ;  authors  or  preachers  were  imprisoned  and  other- 
wise penalized.  "  The  Parliament-men  are  as  great  Princes 
as  any  in  the  World,"  says  Selden,  "  when  whatsoever  they 
please  is  privilege  of  Parliament  ;  no  man  must  know  the 
number  of  their  privileges,  and  whatsoever  they  dislike  is 
breach  of  privilege."  ^ 

Impeachment,  imprisonment,  fines,  confiscation  of  pro- 
perty, or  committal  to  the  Tower,  were  among  the  penalties 
meted  out  with  a  lavish  hand  to  all  who  gave  offence  to  the 
Commons.  In  1624,  Dr.  Harrys,  vicar  of  Blechingly,  was 
brought  to  the  bar  of  the  Commons  for  interfering  at  elections, 
and  compelled  to  confess  his  guilt,  and  afterwards  to 
apologise  to  his  parishioners.  A  Welsh  judge  named 
'  "  Table  Talk,'=  p.  109. 


PRIVILEGE   AND   PUNISHMENT  177 

Jenkins  was  summoned  before  the  Long  Parliament  for 
having  called  the  House  of  Commons  a  den  of  thieves,  and, 
on  refusing  to  "  bow  himself  in  this  house  of  Rimmon,"  was 
sentenced  to  death. 

The  most  trivial  faults,  the  most  innocent  acts,  were  from 
time  to  time  voted  contempts  of  Parliament,  and  the  offenders 
chastised  with  a  barbarity  which  was  out  of  all  proportion  to 
the  nature  of  their  misdeeds.  So  harmless  an  offence  as 
crowding  or  jostling  against  a  member  of  Parliament  was  at 
one  time  considered  a  crime.  In  the  days  when  the  great 
Arthur  Onslow  occupied  the  Chair  of  the  House  of  Commons, 
it  was  his  custom  to  traverse  Westminster  Hall  on  his  way  to 
the  House,  saluting  the  Judges  as  he  passed.  An  unfortunate 
man  who  accidentally  blocked  the  Speaker's  path  on  one 
occasion  was  instantly  ordered  into  custody.^ 

Poaching  the  game  of  a  member  of  Parliament  was  also 
adjudged  a  misdemeanour  worthy  of  severe  retribution.  A 
poacher  who  trespassed  on  the  fishing  rights  of  Admiral 
Griffiths,  M.P.,  in  1759,  was  reprimanded  on  his  knees  at  the 
bar  of  the  Commons.^ 

The  presentation  of  fraudulent  petitions  has  always  been 
regarded  as  a  breach  of  parliamentary  privilege  ;  and,  in  1887, 
a  man  named  Bidmead,  who  presented  a  petition  which  was 
found  to  be  full  of  false  signatures,  was  brought  to  the  bar 
and  severely  reprimanded.  This  process  of  haling  an  offender 
to  the  bar  to  receive  the  censure  of  the  House  was  an  im- 
pressive one,  calculated  to  strike  fear  into  the  boldest  heart. 
The  culprit  was  brought  in,  in  the  custody  of  the  Sergeant- 
at-Arms,  and  compelled  to  kneel  at  the  bar,  where  the  Speaker 
sentenced  him  in  his  severest  tones  to  such  penalties  as  the 
House  deemed  sufficient  to  expiate  his  crime.  One  wretched 
prisoner  was  so  alarmed  that  he  had  a  fit,  and  was  carried 
out  in  an  unconscious  condition. 

The  rule  requiring  an  offender  to  kneel  was  not  finally 
repealed  until  the  middle  of  the  eighteenth  century.     In  175 1 

•  Hatsell's  "  Precedents,"  vol.  ii.  p.  241  n. 

-  Lord  Russell's  "  Essays  and  Sketches,"  p.  346. 

N 


i;8  THE   MOTHER   OF   PARLIAMENTS 

an  attorney  named  Crowle  was  reprimanded  on  his  knees  for 
misconduct  of  some  kind  or  other  at  an  election.  On  rising 
to  his  feet  Mr.  Crowle  carefully  wiped  the  knees  of  his 
trousers,  remarking  contemptuously  that  he  had  never  before 
been  in  so  dirty  a  house.^  In  this  same  year  Alexander 
Murray,  brother  of  the  Jacobite  Lord  Elibank,  was  summoned 
for  obstructing  the  High  Bailiff  of  Westminster  at  election 
time.  He  resolutely  declined  to  kneel  when  brought  to  the 
Commons  bar,  nor  could  the  threats  or  entreaties  of  the 
Sergeant-at-Arms  prevail  upon  him  to  conform  to  the  rules 
of  the  House  in  this  respect.  "  I  never  kneel  but  to  God," 
he  said.  "  When  I  have  committed  a  crime  I  kneel  to  God 
for  pardon,  but,  knowing  my  own  innocence,  I  can  kneel  to 
no  one  else."  As  a  punishment  for  his  obstinacy,  Murray 
was  committed  to  Newgate,  and  remained  there  until  the 
prorogation  of  Parliament.  The  close  of  the  session  operated 
as  his  release,  and  he  was  acclaimed  in  triumph  by  the  City 
populace.  When  Parliament  met  again  he  was  once  more 
committed,  but  fled  abroad,  and  so  escaped  further  im- 
prisonment. 

This  ceremony  of  enforced  kneeling  was  a  humiliation 
repulsive  to  many.  Windham  told  Fanny  Burney  that  the 
sight  of  Warren  Hastings  on  his  knees  at  the  bar  was  so 
repugnant  to  his  feelings  that  he  looked  the  other  way  to 
avoid  seeing  the  degradation  of  the  impeached  statesman. 
"It  hurt  me,"  he  says,  "and  I  wished  it  dispensed  with."  ^ 
This  wish  soon  became  universal,  and  the  practice  was  dis- 
continued in  1772,  Baldwin,  the  printer  of  the  "St.  James's 
Ciironicle,"  who  was  reprimanded  for  publishing  a  report  of 
the  parliamentary  proceedings,  being  the  last  man  to  kneel 
at  the  bar  of  the  House. 

When  a  member  of  Parliament  incurs  the  displeasure  of 
the  House  its  censure  may  be  visited  upon  him  in  various 
ways,  either  by  a  reprimand,  or  by  fine,  or  by  committal  to 
prison.     The  first  instance  of  the  Commons  punishing  one  of 

V  Oldfield's  "  History  o  the  House  of  Commons,"  vol.  i.  p.  420. 
"  "  Diary  and  Letters  of  Mme.  D'Arblay,"  vol.  iv. 


PRIVILEGE   AND   PUNISHMENT  179 

their  own  number  occurs  in  1547,  when  a  member  named 
Storie  was  arrested  by  the  Sergeant-at-Arms  for  speaking 
disrespectfully  of  the  Duke  of  Somerset,  and  was  confined  to 
the  Tower.  The  House  of  Commons  has  never  allowed  its 
members  to  reflect  upon  the  conduct  of  those  in  high  places. 
It  also  forbids  any  criticism  of  a  Resolution  of  the  House, 
unless  the  critical  member  intends  to  conclude  with  a  motion 
for  rescinding  it.  Eight  years  after  the  committal  of  Storie, 
another  member,  Dr.  Parry  by  name,  was  brought  to  the  bar 
for  speaking  in  the  House  against  a  Bill  that  had  already 
passed  its  third  reading,  saying  that  it  was  "  full  of  confisca- 
tions, blood,  danger,  despair,  and  terror  to  the  English  subjects 
of  this  realm,  their  brothers,  uncles,  and  kinsfolk."  ^  Dr. 
Parry  absolutely  declined  to  give  his  reasons  for  holding  this 
view,  nor  would  he  deign  to  explain  why  the  Bill  should  cause 
his  uncles  to  become  desperate  and  terrorstricken.  He  was 
therefore  committed  to  the  Tower,  and  expelled  from  the 
House.  Later  on  an  accusation  of  treason  was  brought 
against  him,  and  a  motion  made  (but,  let  us  hope,  not  carried) 
that  he  be  executed.  In  1581,  another  member,  Arthur  Hall, 
was  fined  and  imprisoned  in  the  Tower  for  publishing  a  book 
of  a  slanderous  character. 

When  the  House  of  Commons  punished  in  those  days  it 
certainly  never  erred  on  the  side  of  leniency.  A  Roman 
Catholic  member  named  Floyd,  who  had  made  use  of  insult- 
ing expressions  with  reference  to  the  daughter  of  James  I., 
was  found  guilty  of  gross  breach  of  privilege.  He  was  sen- 
tenced to  be  degraded,  branded,  whipped,  fined  ;^iooo,  and 
to  stand  twice  in  the  pillory.  After  this,  whatever  was  left 
of  him  was  to  be  imprisoned  for  life.  The  pillory  was  evi- 
dently a  favourite  punishment  for  recalcitrant  members,  and 
as  late  as  1727  we  find  a  legislator  named  Ward  suffering  this 
unpleasant  penalty  in  addition  to  expulsion  from  the  House.^ 

1  D'Ewes'  "Journal,"  p.  341. 

2  Ward  was  expelled    for  forgery.     He    is  referred  to  in   Pope's 
"Dunciad"— 

"  As  thick  as  eggs  at  Ward  in  pillory." — 

Book  iii.  line  34. 


i8o  THE   MOTHER   OF   PARLIAMENTS 

In  James  I.'s  reign  a  certain  Sir  Giles  Mompesson, 
member  of  Parliament,  was  accused  of  "  being  a  Monopolist." 
For  this  crime  he  was  turned  out  of  the  House,  perpetually 
outlawed,  excepted  from  all  general  pardons,  bereft  of  his 
goods,  imprisoned  for  life,  and,  last  of  all,  sentenced  to  be 
"  for  ever  held  an  infamous  person."  ^  Another  member  was 
sent  to  the  Tower  for  "  speaking  out  of  season,"  an  offence 
which  is  fortunately  no  longer  considered  particularly  heinous, 
or  perhaps  few  members  would  be  at  liberty  to-day. 

In  1642  Parliament  appears  to  have  been  especially  piti- 
less, dispensing  fines  and  imprisonments  right  and  left  upon 
any  one  who  displeased  it.  Sir  Edward  Bering  was  im- 
peached for  promoting  a  petition  from  the  county  of  Kent, 
and  the  petition  itself  was  ordered  to  be  burnt  at  the  hands 
of  the  common  hangman.  Sir  Ralph  Hopton  was  imprisoned 
in  the  Tower  for  saying  in  the  House  that  his  fellow-members 
seemed  to  ground  their  views  of  the  King's  apostacy  upon 
evidence  insufficient  to  convict  a  horse-thief;  and  a  wretched 
tradesman  named  Sandeford,  who  cursed  Parliament  and  all 
its  works,  was  fined  a  hundred  marks,  pilloried,  whipped,  and 
sentenced  to  life-long  confinement  in  a  House  of  Correction. 
So  assertive  of  their  power  and  so  jealous  of  their  privileges 
were  the  Commons  at  this  time  that  they  even  made  an  order 
to  issue  a  warrant  for  the  apprehension  of  all  such  persons 
as  one  of  their  members,  Sir  Walter  Erie,  should  name.^ 

Peers  and  prelates  were  no  safer  than  the  humbler 
members  from  the  vindictive  spirit  of  Parliament,  and  any 
breach  of  its  privileges  on  their  part  brought  instant  punish- 
ment. In  1603  the  Bishop  of  Bristol  published  a  book  which 
was  considered  by  Parliament  to  be  most  offensive.  At  a 
conference  of  both  Houses  he  was  sternly  rebuked  "  for  pre- 
suming to  see  more  than  a  Parliament  could,"  when  he  at 
once  recanted,  withdrew  his  obnoxious  presumptions,  and 
declared,  "  first,  that  he  had  erred  ;  secondly,  that  he  was 

*  "  Lex  Parliamentaria,"  pp.  94,  loi. 

-  Sir  Walter  had  lodged  information  of  scandalous  words  spoken  by 
certain  individuals.     See  Lister's  "  Life  of  Clarendon,"  vol.  iii.  p.  125. 


PRIVILEGE   AND   PUNISHMENT  i8i 

sorry  for  it  ;  and,  thirdly,  that  if  it  were  to  do  again,  he 
would  not  do  it."  ^  Only  on  these  abject  terms  could  he 
expiate  his  offence.  A  hundred  years  later,  in  17 12,  a  volume 
of  sermons  written  by  the  Bishop  of  St.  Asaph,  deploring  the 
terms  of  the  peace  with  France  and  Spain,  was  condemned 
to  be  burnt  in  Palace  Yard. 

The  Sergeant-at-Arms  is  the  official  entrusted  with  the 
duty  of  enforcing  the  penal  decisions  of  the  House  of  Com- 
mons.    All  warrants  issued  by  the  House  are  executed  by 
him.     He   brings   witnesses   and   culprits   to   the   bar,   sees 
that  members  and  strangers  do  not  infringe  its  resolutions, 
and  has  the  custody  of  such  persons  as  may  be  committed 
to  his  charge.      The  doorkeepers,  messengers,  and  police  em- 
ployed in  the  Commons  are  under  his  control,  as  are  the  build- 
ings themselves  while  Parliament  is  sitting.     As  an  officer  of 
the  Crown,  he  may  be  summoned  to  attend  upon  the  sovereign 
on  such  occasions  as  the  opening  of  Parliament,  when  the 
Deputy  Sergeant-at-Arms  takes  his   place   as   the  personal 
escort  of  the   Speaker.     Like  his  colleagues,  the   Sergeant 
used  formerly  to  eke  out  a  precarious  living  upon  fees,  and 
received  all  or  a  part  of  the  fines  inflicted  upon  members  for 
absence  or   unpunctuality.     To-day,   however,    he   enjoys  a 
regular  salary,  and  an  official  residence.'^ 

Only  once  since  the  attempt  of  Colonel  Pride  to  purge 
the  House  have  representatives  of  the  law  traversed  the  bar 
of  the  Commons.  The  Palace  of  Westminster,  within  and 
without,  is  guarded  by  members  of  the  Metropolitan  Police, 
but  they  studiously  refrain  from  trespassing  upon  the  sacred 
ground  that  lies  within  the  bar  of  either  House.  During  the 
Speakership  of    Mr.  Gully,    however,  in  1901,  several  Irish 

^  Petyt's  "  Miscellanea  Parliamentaria,"  p.  64. 

2  In  bygone  days  his  duties  evidently  entailed  much  pedestrian 
exercise,  as  may  be  gathered  from  an  Order  of  the  House  issued  in  Queen 
Elizabeth's  time.  "  Upon  Motion  of  the  House  "  (say  the  records),  "  in 
regard  to  the  Infirmity  and  Pains  in  the  Sergeant's  Feet,  he  is  licensed 
by  the  House  to  ride  a  Footcloth  Nag."  "Observations,  Rules,  and 
Orders  Collected  out  of  Divers  Journals  of  the  House  of  Commons" 
(1717),  p.  138. 


i82  THE   MOTHER   OF   PARLIAMENTS 

members  declined  to  leave  the  House  when  ordered  to  do  so 
for  a  division,  and  resisted  the  Sergeant-at-Arms  and  his 
myrmidons.  Stout  police-constables  were  therefore  sum- 
moned, and  bore  the  unwilling  members  struggling  to  the 
door  in  that  kindly  but  determined  grasp  which,  as  Suffra- 
gettes have  since  learnt  by  experience,  is  one  of  the  chief 
charms  of  the  A  Division. 

The  right  of  the  Houses  of  Parliament  to  regulate  their 
own  internal  concerns  has  always  been  admitted.  In  Henry 
VI.'s  reign  the  Lord  Chief  Justice  informed  the  House  of 
Lords  that  the  High  Court  of  Parliament  "  is  so  high  and 
mighty  in  its  nature  that  it  may  make  law,  and  that  that  is 
law  it  may  make  no  law,  and  the  determination  and  know- 
ledge of  that  privilege  belongs  to  the  Lords  of  the  Parlia- 
ment, and  not  to  the  Justices."  ^  Courts  of  law  have  never 
interfered  with  anything  that  took  place  in  Parliament  unless 
it  were  of  an  essentially  criminal  character.  Parliament,  how- 
ever, has  not  always  shown  the  same  consideration  for  courts 
of  law.  In  1703,  a  man  named  Ashby  brought  an  action 
against  the  constables  of  Aylesbury  for  refusing  to  record  his 
vote  at  an  election.  The  Commons  thereupon  declared  it  a 
gross  breach  of  privilege  that  any  court  other  than  themselves 
should  presume  to  try  a  case  that  had  any  reference  to  an 
election,  and  proceeded  to  take  into  custody  everybody  con- 
cerned in  the  affair.  The  Speaker  went  in  person  to  the 
Court  of  Queen's  Bench  to  summon  the  Lord  Chief  Justice  to 
attend  upon  the  Commons  and  explain  the  law's  unjustifiable 
interposition.  F'or  once,  however,  the  representative  of  Parlia- 
ment was  forced  to  beat  an  undignified  retreat.  Old  Lord 
Chief  Justice  Holt  was  a  quick-tempered  man,  and  not  at  all 
awed  by  the  presence  of  Speaker  Smith.  "  If  you  do  not 
depart  from  this  court,"  he  said  to  him  in  his  sternest  voice, 
"  I  will  commit  you,  though  you  have  the  whole  House  of 
Commons  in  your  belly  !  " 

This  was  but  one  example  of  the  numerous  collisions 
between  Parliament  and  the  law,  resulting  from  the  former's 
'  "  Rot .  Pari ; "  vol.  v.  239-240. 


PRIVILEGE  AND   PUNISHMENT  183 

rigid  insistence  upon  bygone  privileges,  and  the  difficulty  of 
settling  which  questions  should  be  left  to  the  arbitrament  of 
either  authority.  If  matters  were  left  to  the  decision  of  the 
Commons,  it  is  clear  that  everything  would  probably  be 
brought  within  the  scope  of  privilege  ;  if  to  courts  of  law,  all 
privilege  would  possibly  be  abolished.  Some  thought  the 
former  alternative  was  the  least  to  be  feared.  "  While  men 
are  but  men,"  said  Lord  Jeffrey,  "  we  must  be  at  the  mercy 
of  a  fallible  and  irresponsible  despotism  at  best  ;  and  if  we 
have  to  choose,  as  in  an  open  question,  few  would  hesitate  to 
say  that  they  would  rather  have  the  House  of  Commons  for 
a  despot  than  the  courts  of  law."  ^  But  the  matter  became 
ridiculous  when  Parliament  insisted  on  interfering  in  questions 
which  it  had  clearly  no  right  to  decide.  In  172 1,  for  instance, 
the  House  of  Commons  committed  the  proprietors  of  a  paper 
called  "  Mist's  Journal  "  to  Newgate  for  publishing  an  article 
favouring  the  restoration  of  the  Pretender.  This  could 
scarcely  be  considered  a  breach  of  privilege,  but  the  House 
thought  itself  empowered  to  deal  with  all  political  offenders. 
Since  that  time  no  one  has  been  committed,  except  for  a 
distinct  breach  of  privilege,  or  for  contempt  of  Parliament. 
The  latter  term,  however,  embraces  the  most  trivial  offences 
In  1827,  a  stranger  who  was  visiting  the  House  of  Lords  left 
his  umbrella  in  the  cloak-room,  by  order  of  the  attendant. 
On  returning  to  claim  his  property  at  the  end  of  the  sitting, 
he  found  that  his  umbrella — following  the  universal  fashion 
of  that  elusive  article — had  disappeared.  He  proceeded  to 
bring  an  action  against  the  doorkeeper,  and  was  awarded 
damages  amounting  to  £1  os.  ^d.  Lord  Chancellor  Eldon 
thereupon  summoned  him  to  the  bar  of  the  Lords,  and  forced 
him,  on  pain  of  imprisonment,  to  refund  the  value  of  his 
umbrella  and  apologise.  Four  years  later,  the  printer  of 
"  The  Times "  was  fined  ;^ioo  and  sent  to  Newgate  for 
having  dared  to  call  the  Earl  of  Limerick  "  a  thing  with 
human  pretensions." 

The    House    of    Lords    has    always    considered    itself 
^  Cockburn's  "  Life  of  Jeffrey,"  vol.  ii.  p.  354. 


i84  THE   MOTHER   OF    PARLIAMENTS 

empowered  to  inflict  fines  as  well  as  imprisonment  for  a  fixed 
period.  When  the  Commons  confine  an  offender  they  may 
put  no  term  to  his  sentence,  and  he  is  released  automatically 
on  a  prorogation.  For  the  last  two  hundred  years  they  have 
ceased  to  exercise  the  right  of  fining  delinquents,  but  in 
early  days,  as  we  have  seen,  they  often  inflicted  financial 
penalties,  and  stimulated  the  attendance  of  their  own 
members  by  an  inroad  upon  their  pockets. 

At  the  very  commencement  of  parliamentary  history 
the  shires  or  boroughs  whose  representatives  did  not  appear 
in  their  places  in  Parliament  were  fined  ;{^ICK).  In  1580, 
any  knight  who  stayed  away  for  a  whole  session  was 
fined  ^20,  while  citizens  and  burgesses  were  fined  ;^io. 
Besides  this,  members  lost  their  pay  during  absence,  and,  by 
an  Act  of  Henry  VHI.,  boroughs  and  shires  were  exonerated 
from  the  payment  of  wages  to  members  who  left  Parlia- 
ment before  the  end  of  the  session  without  the  Speaker's 
permission. 

In  similar  fashion  peers  and  bishops  were  punished  for 
non-attendance,  the  size  of  their  fines  varying  in  proportion 
to  the  rank  of  the  offender.  An  ordinance  framed  in 
Henry  VI.'s  time,  about  1452,  imposed  fines  of  from  £40  to 
;^ioo  upon  absentee  peers,  the  sum  thus  raised  to  be  appro- 
priated to  the  defence  of  Calais.^  In  1625  a  fine  of  $s.  per 
day  was  imposed  upon  peers  who  disregarded  their  summons 
to  Parliament,  and  we  read  of  the  Cinque  Ports  being  mulcted 
in  the  sum  of  a  hundred  marks  because  their  baron  absented 
himself^  When  the  Bill  for  degrading  Queen  Caroline  was 
before  the  Lords  a  fine  of  ;£"ioo  was  imposed  during  the  first 
three  days,  and  ^50  for  any  subsequent  day,  on  which  any 
peer  did  not  attend,  unless  he  could  prove  illness  or  un- 
avoidable absence.  By  a  former  Standing  Order,  every  lord 
who  entered  the  House  after  prayers  was  fined,  if  a  baron  or 
a  bishop,  is.  ;  if  of  higher  rank,  2s.  What  a  contrast  to  these 
degenerate  days  in  which  the  Lord  Chancellor,  the  bishop, 

'  Nicholas's  "  Proceedings  of  the  Privy  Council,"  vol.  vi.  p.  Ixv. 
-  "  Modus  Tenendi  Parliamentum,"  p.  28. 


PRIVILEGE   AND   PUNISHMENT  185 

and  one  peer,  hunted  up  for  the  purpose,  form  a  reluctant 
congregation  ! 

In  the  days  of  Charles  I.  penalties  were  extremely 
necessary  if  the  business  of  Parliament  was  to  be  carried 
on  at  all.  Members  took  their  duties  lightly,  and  at  times 
not  more  than  a  dozen  would  appear  in  their  places  at  West- 
minster. Prynne  describes  them  as  wasting  their  time  in 
taverns,  playhouses,  dicing-houses,  cockpits,  and  bowling 
alleys,  "  rambling  abroad  to  such  places  at  unreasonable 
Hours  of  the  Night  in  antique  Parliamentary  Robes,  Vest- 
ments fitter  for  a  Mask  or  Stage  than  the  gravity  of  a 
Parliament  House."  They  would  only  come  to  peep  into 
the  House  once  or  twice  a  week,  he  says,  to  show  themselves 
in  such  disguises,  and  ask,  "  What  news  ?  "  * 

In  the  Parliament  which  passed  the  Grand  Remonstrance 
there  were  sometimes  as  many  as  two  hundred  absentees. 
To  remedy  this  evil  it  was  proposed  by  Strode  that  any 
member  who  stayed  away  without  leave  should  be  fined  £$0, 
or  expelled.  This  proposal,  says  D'Ewes,  "  was  much  debated, 
but  laid  aside."  ^  Even  those  members  who  attended  did  so 
in  a  casual  and  perfunctory  fashion,  which  proved  a  source 
of  great  inconvenience  to  colleagues  who  took  their  responsi- 
bilities more  seriously.  In  order,  therefore,  to  enforce 
punctuality,  minor  fines  were  inflicted,  and  in  1628  an  order 
was  made  that  any  member  who  came  in  late  for  prayers 
must  contribute  is.  to  the  poor  box.  The  House  met  at 
seven  or  eight  o'clock  in  the  morning  in  those  days;  members 
therefore  had  some  excuse  for  arriving  late,  and  the  system 
had  to  be  temporarily  abandoned  in  1641,  owing  to  the  inter- 
ruption of  business  resulting  from  the  cries  of  "  Pay  !  Pay  1 " 
with  which  unpunctual  persons  were  greeted.  "  Scenes  "  would 
often  take  place  when  members  arrived  just  as  the  clock  was 
striking,  and  either  refused  to  pay  their  shillings,  or  flung 
them  angrily  upon  the  floor  for  the  Sergeant  to  pick  up. 
Later  on,  when  the  House  rose  at  midday,  instead   of  in 

1  "  Brief  Register  of  Parliamentary  Writs,"  p.  672. 
3  Forster's  "  Grand  Remonstrance,"  p.  316  n. 


i86  THE   MOTHER   OF   PARLIAMENTS 

the  afternoon,  the  regulation  was  revived.  Speaker  Lenthall 
himself  was  late  on  one  occasion,  much  to  the  delight  of  the 
House,  and,  his  attention  being  drawn  to  the  fact,  threw 
his  shilling  down  on  to  the  table  with  every  sign  of 
annoyance. 

As  late  as  the  middle  of  the  eighteenth  century  members 
did  not  allow  their  parliamentary  duties  to  interfere  with 
their  social  pleasures.  Burke  once  complained  because  the 
Commons  rose  early  in  order  to  attend  a  fcte-chatnpctre 
given  by  Lady  Stanley.*  And  in  175 1  Horace  Walpole  told 
a  friend  that  on  the  day  appointed  for  the  debate  on  the 
Naturalization  Bill  the  House  "adjourned  to  attend  Drury 
Lane."  2 

From  time  to  time  attempts  were  made  to  secure  the 
attendance  of  members  by  means  of  a  "  call  of  the  House,"  of 
which  due  notice  was  given,  members  who  failed  to  answer 
their  names  being  punished.  A  "  call "  which  was  taken  in 
October,  1647,  resulted  in  the  discovery  that  one  hundred  and 
fifty  members  were  absent,  and  after  a  prolonged  debate  it 
was  decided  that  they  should  be  ordered  to  pay  a  fine  of  ^20 
each.  This  system  has  fallen  into  disuse,  the  last  "call" 
taking  place  in  1836.^  Five  years  before  this  date,  however, 
on  March  17,  1831,  three  members,  including  Lord  F.  L. 
Gower,  who  were  not  in  their  places  when  their  names  were 
called,  were  given  into  the  custody  of  the  Sergeant-at-Arms, 
and  compelled  to  pay  fines  ranging  from  £>^  to  ;^io.* 

A  member  who  offends  against  any  of  the  rules  or  orders 
of  the  House  of  Commons  may  be  dealt  with  in  several  ways, 
either  by  being  silenced,  suspended,  expelled,  or  committed 
to  prison.  If  any  member  indulges  in  irrelevance  or  tedious 
repetition  the  Speaker  can  call  upon  him  to  discontinue  his 
speech.      Should  the  offence  against  order  be  more  serious 

'  Townsend's  "  History,"  vol.  iii.  p.  377. 
^  "  Letters,"  March  7,  1731. 

^  The  last  "call"  of  the  Lords  took  place  in  1901  on  the  trial  of  Earl 
Russell. 

*  Grant's  "  Recollections,"  p.  52. 


THE   HOUSE   OF  COMMONS   IN   1835 

KRO>.    AN    ENGKAV.NG   BY  SAMUEL   COUSINS   FROM   THE    PAINTING    BY   H.  W.  BURGESS 


PRIVILEGE  AND   PUNISHMENT  187 

the  Speaker  may  either  order  the  offender  to  withdraw  from 
the  House  or  may  "  name "  him,  whereupon,  on  the  motion 
of  the  Leader  of  the  House,  he  is  suspended  from  its  service. 
The  practice  of  "naming"  originated  in  1841,  when  Speaker 
Lenthall,  after  trying  in  vain  to  silence  certain  noisy 
members  who  were  chatting  together  under  the  gallery,  called 
upon  Sir  W.  Carnabie  by  name.  In  former  days  little 
unpleasantness  seems  to  have  attached  to  the  process  of 
"  naming,"  and  when  Speaker  Onslow  was  asked  what  the 
result  would  be  of  "  naming "  a  refractory  member  he  could 
but  answer, "  Heaven  only  knows  !  "  ^ 

To-day  a  Speaker  may  order  any  member  whose  conduct 
is  unruly  to  withdraw  from  the  House  for  the  remainder  of  the 
sitting.  By  a  Standing  Order  any  member  wilfully  abusing  the 
regulations  of  the  House  can  be  "  named  "  by  the  Chairman 
or  Speaker,  and  suspended  until  the  end  of  the  session,  unless 
the  House  decides  to  re-admit  him  sooner.  When  a  member 
is  "  named,"  the  Sergeant-at-Arms  escorts  him  from  the 
precincts  of  the  chamber,  and  he  is  seen  off  the  premises  by 
the  police.  Should  he  decline  to  obey  the  Sergeant's  invita- 
tion to  accompany  him  beyond  the  bar,  a  couple  of  elderly 
attendants  step  forward  and  prepare  to  expedite  his  progress 
towards  the  door.  If  force  has  to  be  used  in  order  to  make 
a  member  withdraw,  his  suspension  lasts  unquestionably  until 
the  end  of  the  session. 

The  punishment  of  suspension  had  not  been  used  for  two 
hundred  years  when  it  was  revived  in  1877.  Immediately 
following  the  extraordinary  scenes  of  obstruction  which  gave 
rise  to  Speaker  Brand's  resolute  action,  a  wholesale  suspension 
of  Irish  members  took  place.  On  February  3,  1881,  Parnell 
and  more  than  a  score  of  his  colleagues  were  named  and 
suspended  for  refusing  either  to  take  part  in  a  division  or  to 
withdraw  from  the  House.  When  the  "  closure  "  was  applied 
for  the  first  time  in  February,  1885,  a  scene  of  uproar  ensued, 

1  Fox  asked  Sir  Fletcher  Norton  the  same  question.  "  What  will 
happen  ? "  replied  the  Speaker  :  "  hang  me  if  I  either  know  or  care  !  " 
"  Life  of  Sidmouth,"  vol.  i.  p.  69  n. 


i88  THE   MOTHER   OF   PARLIAMENTS 

as  a  result  of  which  Mr.  O'Brien  was  suspended,  and  in 
March,  1901,  as  already  mentioned,  twelve  Irish  members 
who  declined  to  leave  their  places  for  a  division  were  forcibly 
removed  by  the  Sergeant-at-Arms  and  police,  and  sub- 
sequently suspended. 

Committal  to  the  custody  of  the  Sergeant-at-Arms  is  now- 
adays an  uncommon  parliamentary  punishment,  Bradlaugh 
being  one  of  the  last  members  to  be  confined  in  the  Clock 
Tower.^  Both  Houses,  however,  have  the  legal  right  of 
imprisoning  (at  Holloway  or  elsewhere)  any  British  subjects 
who  offend  against  their  privileges. 

Expulsion  from  the  House  of  Commons  is,  perhaps,  the 
direst  penalty  that  can  be  inflicted  upon  a  member.  In  1714, 
Lord  Cochrane  and  Steele  the  essayist  were  both  expelled — 
the  one  for  spreading  false  reports  on  the  Stock  Exchange, 
the  other  for  publishing  "  The  Crisis,"  a  pamphlet  antagonistic 
in  tone  to  the  Government.  Some  fifty  years  later  Wilkes, 
who  had  been  prosecuted  for  his  articles  in  the  "  North  Briton," 
was  also  expelled  from  the  House.  The  voters  of  Middlesex 
at  once  re-elected  him,  but  Parliament  declared  his  opponent, 
the  defeated  candidate,  to  be  duly  elected.  In  1782,  however, 
the  resolution  against  Wilkes  was  erased  from  the  journals  of 
the  House.  At  the  time  of  the  South  Sea  Bubble  a  number 
of  members  were  turned  out  for  fraud.  Since  then,  however, 
the  list  of  expulsions  has  dwindled,  until  to-day  such  a  thing 
would  be  considered  a  rare  and  unique  occurrence.  Though 
expulsion  does  not  preclude  re-election,  a  grave  moral  stigma 
attaches  to  the  penalty,  and  a  modern  member  who  incurred 
it  would  find  but  little  consolation  in  the  reflection  that  he 
shared  this  invidious  distinction  with  men  of  no  less  eminence 
than  Steele  and  Walpole. 

'  In  1834  Lord  Al thorp  and  Shell  were  locked  up  by  the  Sergeant-at- 
Arms,  by  order  of  the  Speaker,  until  they  had  apologised  to  the  House 
and  one  another  for  the  use  of  unparliamentary  language.  Cf.  O'Connell's 
"Recollections  and  Experiences,"  vol.  i.  p.  169. 


CHAPTER  XI 

PARLIAMENTARY   DRESS   AND   DEPORT- 
MENT 

PARLIAMENT  to-day  differs  in  very  many  respects 
from  the  Parliaments  of  the  past ;  nowhere  does  that 
difference  express  itself  more  forcibly  than  in  the 
remarkable  improvement  in  parliamentary  manners  of  which 
the  last  century  has  been  the  witness. 

Sir  John  Eliot's  well-known  words  are  far  more  applicable 
to  the  modern  House  of  Commons  than  they  can  ever  have 
been  three  hundred  years  ago.  "  Noe  wher  more  gravitie  can 
be  found  than  is  represented  in  that  senate,"  he  said,  speaking 
of  the  Chamber  of  which  he  was  so  distinguished  a  member. 
"  Noe  court  has  more  civilitie  in  itself,  nor  a  face  of  more 
dignitie  towards  strangers.  Noe  wher  more  equall  justice  can 
be  found  :  nor  yet,  perhaps,  more  wisdom."  ^  It  was  no 
doubt  a  pardonable  sense  of  pride  that  caused  Sir  John  to 
take  so  optimistic  a  view  of  the  assembly  of  his  day,  for  there 
is  ample  evidence  to  show  that  the  House  of  Commons  of 
the  sixteenth  and  seventeenth  centuries  was  not  always  the 
grave  or  civil  chamber  which  he  describes.  Its  passions 
were  not  invariably  under  control ;  they  flared  up  into  a 
blaze  on  more  than  one  occasion.  The  appearance  of 
Cardinal  Wolsey  to  demand  a  subsidy  for  his  royal  master 
was  the  signal  for  an  outburst  of  feeling  which  almost  ended 
in  bloodshed ;  the  Long  Parliament  was  in  a  perpetual  state 
of  storm  and  disorder. 

During  the  Stuart  period,  and  even  more  so  towards  the 

1  Forster's  "  Sir  John  Eliot,"  vol.  i.  p.  238. 
189 


190  THE   MOTHER  OF   PARLIAMENTS 

close  of  the  Commonwealth,  the  conduct  of  the  Commons 
was  anything  but  decorous.  The  Speaker  of  those  days 
frequently  found  it  impossible  to  maintain  order  ;  the  Chair 
was  held  in  little  respect.  The  behaviour  of  the  House  was 
but  little  better  than  that  of  the  Irish  Parliament  in  the  time 
of  Elizabeth,  which  spent  most  of  its  time  in  futile  argument 
and  disagreement :  "  The  more  words,  the  more  choler ;  and 
the  more  speeches,  the  greater  broils."  ^  It  was  at  the  com- 
mencement of  the  seventeenth  century  that  the  first  violent 
manifestations  of  party  feeling  took  place  which  were  after- 
wards destined  to  cause  so  many  "  scenes  "  in  the  Commons. 
Owing  to  the  constant  discord  prevalent  there,  that  House 
was,  by  one  member,  likened  to  a  cockpit ;  another  wrote  to 
Sir  Dudley  Carleton  that  "  many  sat  there  who  were  more 
fit  to  be  among  roaring  boys "  ;  and  a  third  declared  his 
desire  to  escape,  not  only  to  the  Upper  House,  but  to  the 
upper  world  altogether. 

During  the  lengthy  debates  on  the  publication  of  the 
Grand  Remonstrance  in  1641,  feeling  ran  so  high  that 
members  would  have  sheathed  their  swords  in  one  another's 
vitals  but  for  the  timely  intervention  of  Hampden.  Even 
those  who  did  not  actively  assault  each  other  seem  to  have 
expressed  so  much  malice  in  their  looks  as  to  cause  serious 
alarm  to  their  opponents.  In  1642,  for  instance,  Sir  H. 
Mildmay  complained  to  the  House  that  the  member  for 
Coventry  "  looked  very  fiercely  upon  him  when  he  spoke, 
and  that  it  was  done  in  an  unparliamentary  way."'' 

In  the  reign  of  Charles  II.  riotous  debates  were  of  frequent 
if  not  daily  occurrence.  When  Titus  Oates  appeared  at  the 
bar  of  the  Commons  to  accuse  Queen  Katherine  of  high 
treason,  partisan  excitement  reached  a  dangerous  pitch.  In 
1675,  a  free  fight  between  Lord  Cavendish  and  Sir  John 
Hanmer  was  only  prevented  by  the  tact  of  Speaker  Seymour, 

*  Mountmorris's  "  History  of  the  Irish  Parliament,"  vol.  i.  p.  TJ. 

2  Palgrave's  "House  of  Commons,"  p.  18.  (The  Speaker,  however, 
does  not  appear  to  have  thought  it  necessary  to  call  upon  the  member 
for  Coventry  to  withdraw  his  fierce  and  unparliamentary  expression.) 


DRESS  AND   DEPORTMENT  191 

who  resumed  the  Chair  on  his  own  responsibility — the  House 
was  in  Committee  at  the  time — and  managed  to  quell  the 
disturbance  before  blows  had  been  exchanged. 

Scenes  of  a  less  serious  nature  took  place  on  many  occa- 
sions. Andrew  Marvell,  the  much  respected  member  for 
Hull,  was  entering  the  House  of  Commons  one  morning 
when  he  accidentally  stumbled  against  the  outstretched  leg 
of  Sir  Philip  Harcourt.  In  recovering  himself,  Marvell 
playfully  dealt  Sir  Philip  a  resounding  box  on  the  ear.  The 
Speaker  at  once  drew  the  attention  of  the  House  to  this 
affront,  and  members  became  greatly  excited.  When  Marvell 
was  at  length  allowed  an  opportunity  of  speaking,  he  ex- 
plained that  "  what  passed  was  through  great  acquaintance 
and  familiarity"  between  Sir  Philip  and  himself,  and  that 
his  blow  was  merely  a  token  of  deep  affection.  After  a 
heated  debate  the  matter  was  allowed  to  drop,  though  other 
members  of  the  House  must  subsequently  have  fought  shy 
of  making  friends  with  a  man  who  expressed  his  liking  in 
so  boisterous  and  painful  a  fashion.^ 

The  fact  that  many  members  of  both  Houses  frequently 
attended  the  debates  in  an  advanced  stage  of  intoxication 
was,  perhaps,  the  cause  of  most  of  the  parliamentary  un- 
pleasantness of  past  days.  At  Westminster,  indeed,  the 
sobriety  of  legislators  was  scarcely  more  noticeable  than 
at  Edinburgh,  where  the  Scottish  Parliament  that  met  on 
the  Restoration  of  Charles  H.  was  forced  to  adjourn,  owing 
to  the  fact  that  the  Commissioner  Middleton  and  most  of 
the  members  were  too  drunk  to  deliberate. 

Instances  of  parliamentary  intemperance  and  its  natural 
results  were  common  enough  in  those  days.  In  162 1,  a 
quarrel  arose  in  the  House  of  Lords  between  the  Earl  of 
Berkshire  and  Lord  Scrope.  The  former  quickly  lost  his 
*  Andrew  Marvell's  "Works,"  vol.  ii.  p.  33.  (Sir  Philip  Harcourt 
might  well  have  anticipated  the  remark  made  by  the  Georgian  monarch 
who,  while  leaning  out  of  a  window,  received  a  severe  blow  from  a  foot- 
man who  had  mistaken  the  royal  back  for  that  of  his  fellow-domestic, 
James.  "Even  if  I  had  been  James,"  the  King  plaintively  exclaimed, 
"  you  needn't  have  hit  me  so  hard  !  ") 


192  THE   MOTHER   OF   PARLIAMENTS 

temper  and  laid  violent  hands  on  his  colleague.  For  this 
he  was  called  to  the  bar,  censured  by  the  Lord  Chancellor, 
and  committed  to  the  Tower.  Again,  at  a  conference  between 
the  two  English  Houses,  in  1666,  the  Lords  behaved  to  one 
another  with  extreme  discourtesy.  The  Duke  of  Buckingham 
opened  the  proceedings  by  leaning  across  Lord  Dorchester 
in  a  rude  and  offensive  manner.  The  latter  gently  but 
firmly  removed  the  intruding  elbow,  and  on  being  asked  if 
he  were  uncomfortable,  replied  that  he  certainly  was,  and 
that  nowhere  but  in  the  House  of  Lords  would  the  Duke 
dare  to  behave  in  so  boorish  a  fashion.  Buckingham  irrele- 
vantly retorted  that  he  was  the  better  man  of  the  two, 
whereupon  Dorchester  told  his  noble  colleague  that  he  was 
a  liar.  The  Duke  then  struck  off  the  other's  hat,  seized  hold 
of  his  periwig,  and  began  to  pull  him  about  the  Chamber. 
At  this  moment,  luckily,  the  Lord  Chamberlain  and  several 
peers  interposed,  and  the  two  quarrelsome  noblemen  were 
sent  to  the  Tower  to  regain  control  of  their  tempers. 

The  Commons  meanwhile  were  behaving  in  no  less  repre- 
hensible a  manner.  "  Sir  Allen  Brodricke  and  Sir  Allen 
Apsly  did  come  drunk  the  other  day  into  the  House,"  says 
Pepys,  "and  did  both  speak  for  half  an  hour  together,  and 
could  not  be  either  laughed,  or  pulled,  or  bid  to  sit  down."  ^ 
Such  a  state  of  things  was  so  usual  in  either  House  at  the 
time  as  to  provoke  neither  comment  nor  criticism.  The  tone 
of  society  may  be  gauged  from  the  fact  that  at  the  end  of 
the  seventeenth  century  it  was  not  thought  peculiar  for  a 
party  of  Cabinet  Ministers,  including  the  Earl  of  Rochester, 
then  Lord  High  Treasurer  of  England,  stripped  to  their 
shirts  and  riotously  intoxicated,  to  climb  the  nearest  sign- 
post in  order  to  drink  the  King's  health  from  a  suitable  point 
of  vantage.^ 

The  usual  condition  of  the  Commons  during  the  hearing 
of  election  petitions  a  hundred  years  later  has  been  forcibly 
described  by  Thomas  Townshend.     "A  House  of  twenty  or 

'  "  Diary,"  December  19,  1666. 
-  Reresby's  "  Memoirs,"  p.  231. 


DRESS   AND   DEPORTMENT  193 

thirty  members,"  he  says,  *'  half  asleep  during  the  examination 
of  witnesses  at  the  bar,  the  other  half  absent  at  Arthur's  or 
Almack's,  .  .  .  returning  to  vote  so  intoxicated  that  they 
could  scarcely  speak  or  stand."  It  must,  however,  be 
admitted  that  members'  frequent  potations  did  not  always 
affect  their  utterance.  Indeed,  they  sometimes  appear  to 
have  had  an  entirely  opposite  result.  In  1676,  Lord  Car- 
narvon, under  the  influence  of  wine,  made  a  remarkably 
humorous  and  able  speech  in  the  House  of  Lords,  causing 
the  Duke  of  Buckingham  to  exclaim,  "  The  man  is  inspired, 
and  claret  has  done  the  business ! "  Charles  Townshend,  too, 
whom  Burke  called  the  delight  and  ornament  of  the  House, 
and  who  was  offered  the  Chancellorship  of  the  Exchequer 
by  Pitt,  seems  to  have  been  far  more  eloquent  in  his  cups 
than  at  any  other  time.  He  is  chiefly  famous  for  making 
what  is  known  as  the  "Champagne  Speech"  of  May  12th, 
1767 — a  speech  which,  as  Walpole  declared  to  a  friend, 
nobody  but  Townshend  could  have  made,  and  nobody  but 
he  would  have  made  if  he  could.  It  was  at  once  a  proof 
that  his  abilities  were  superior  to  those  of  all  men,  and  his 
judgment  below  that  of  any  man.  It  showed  him  capable 
of  being,  and  unfit  to  be.  Prime  Minister.  "  He  beat  Chatham 
in  language,  Burke  in  metaphors,  Grenville  in  presumption, 
Rigby  in  impudence,  himself  in  folly,  and  everybody  in  good 
humour."*  Half  a  bottle  of  champagne,  as  Walpole  said, 
poured  on  genuine  genius,  had  kindled  this  wonderful  blaze. 

Pitt,  as  is  well  known,  possessed  a  marvellously  strong 
head.  He  and  Dundas  one  evening  finished  seven  bottles 
without  the  slightest  difficulty,  and  he  would  often  fortify 
himself  with  whole  tumblers  of  his  favourite  wine  before 
going  down  to  Westminster.^ 

It  was  during  the  famous  debate  of  February  21,  1783, 
when  Fox  was  defending  the  Peace  of  Paris,  that  Pitt  retired 
behind  the  Speaker's    Chair  to  be   actively  unwell,  at  the 

^  "  Extracts  of  the  Journals  and  Correspondence  of  Miss   Berry," 
vol.  ii.  p.  35. 

^  Samuel  Rogers'  "Recollections,"  p.  112. 
o 


194  THE   MOTHER   OF   PARLIAMENTS 

same  time  keeping  his  hand  up  to  his  ear  that  he  might  miss 
none  of  his  rival's  points.  His  conduct  on  this  occasion 
afifected  one  of  the  sensitive  clerks  at  the  Table  with  a  violent 
attack  of  neuralgia — a  providential  division  of  labour,  as  Pitt 
pointed  out,  whereby  he  himself  had  enjoyed  the  wine  while 
the  clerk  had  the  headache  !  It  has  often  been  considered 
surprising  that  Pitt  should  have  been  able  to  exercise  such 
influence  on  the  House  after  drinking  three  bottles  of  strong 
port,  but,  as  a  distinguished  statesman  has  observed,  it  must 
be  remembered  that  he  was  addressing  an  assembly  few  of 
whose  members  had  drunk  less  than  two. 

At  the  commencement  of  the  nineteenth  century,  when 
Abbot  was  in  the  Chair,  the  member  for  Southampton,  Fuller 
by  name,  entered  the  House  in  a  hazy  but  happy  frame  of 
mind,  which  induced  him  to  mistake  the  Speaker  in  his  wig 
for  an  owl  in  an  ivy  bush.  He  was  promptly  removed  by  the 
Sergeant-at-Arms,  and  kept  in  custody  until  his  eyesight  had 
resumed  its  normal  condition.'  Another  member.  Sir  George 
Rose,  arrived  at  Westminster  in  a  condition  which  inspired 
him  to  call  upon  the  Speaker  for  a  comic  song,  and  led  to 
his  being  taken  in  charge  by  the  Sergeant-at-Arms. 

Lord  Chancellor  Brougham  used  to  refresh  himself 
copiously  while  upon  the  Woolsack,  and,  during  his  four- 
hour  speech  on  the  Reform  Bill,  drank  no  less  than  five 
tumblers  of  mulled  port  and  brandy.^  There  was,  therefore, 
perhaps  some  reason  for  his  extreme  indignation  when  the 
Duke  of  Buckingham  referred  to  the  possibility  of  disturbing 
him  in  the  midst  of  his  "  potations  pottle  deep  " — a  quotation 
which  Brougham  did  not  recognize,  and  which  evoked  from 
him  a  violent  outburst.^ 

*  Townsend's  "  History,"  vol.  ii.  p.  93. 

2  Campbell's  "  Lives  of  the  Chancellors." 

3  Grant's  "  Recollections  of  the  House  of  Lords  "  (1834).  (This  is 
not  the  only  instance  of  a  well-known  quotation  passing  unrecognized 
in  Parliament.  In  1853,  when  Bishop  Wilberforce  made  a  good-humoured 
attack  on  Lord  Derby,  the  latter  remarked  that  a  man  might  "  smile  and 
smile  and  be  a  villain,"  and  thereby  caused  much  excitement  among  the 
Lords,  who  had  not  recently  studied  their  "  Hamlet.") 


QUEEN    CAROLI 


HENRY   BROUGHAM 

Xe's   attorney-general,    afterwards   lord    high    CHANCELLdU 
OK    great   BRITAIN 
from  the  fainting  by  James  Lonsdale  in  the  National  Portrait  Gallery 


DRESS   AND   DEPORTMENT  195 

Peers  and  members  of  Parliament  to-day  have  no  such 
weaknesses,  or,  at  any  rate,  refrain  from  exhibiting  them  in 
Parh'ament.  There  have  been,  of  course,  exceptional  instances, 
even  in  modern  times,  of  persons  speaking  under  the  influence 
of  drink,  but  these  are  so  rare  as  scarcely  to  deserve  mention. 
An  Irishman  in  a  conspicuously  genial  frame  of  mind  referred 

to  a  Conservative  member  in  the  lobby  as  a  "  d fool." 

The  latter  overheard  this  remark  and  contemptuously  retorted 
that  his  honourable  friend  was  drunk.  "  I  may  be  drunk," 
admitted  the   Irishman,  "  but  to-morrow  I   shall   be   sober. 

Whereas  you'll  be  a  d fool  to-morrow,  and  the  next  day, 

and  all  the  rest  of  your  life !  "  During  one  of  those  intermin- 
able sittings  of  1877,  when  obstruction  was  at  its  height, 
another  Irishman,  "weary  with  watching,  and  warm  with 
whisky,"  applied  the  same  opprobrious  term  to  a  fellow 
member.  On  being  ordered  to  withdraw  the  expression 
he  explained  that  it  "  was  only  a  quotation."  "  Whether  the 
remark  of  the  hon.  gentleman  can  be  explained  by  a  quota- 
tion or  a  potation,"  said  the  Chairman,  "it  is  equally  in- 
admissible, and  I  must  beg  him  in  future  to  mind  his  p's 
and  q's."  ^ 

Irish  members  have  probably  been  the  cause  of  more 
parliamentary  disturbance  than  all  the  rest  of  their  colleagues 
put  together,  Daniel  O'Connell,  whom  Disraeli  once  called 
"the  vagabond  delegate  of  a  foreign  priesthood," ^  was  a 
perpetual  source  of  trouble  to  the  House.  In  1840,  he  was 
the  centre  of  one  of  the  most  noisy  scenes  that  has  ever 
outraged  its  dignity.  Macaulay  declared  that  he  had  never 
before  or  since  seen  such  unseemly  behaviour,  or  heard  such 
scurrilous  language  used  in  Parliament.  Members  on  both 
sides  of  the  House  stood  up  and  shouted  at  the'tops  of  their 
voices,  shaking  their  fists  in  one  another's  faces.^  Lord 
Norreys  and  Lord  Maidstone  particularly  distinguished  them- 
selves by  the  pandemonium  they  created,  while  others  of  their 

^  "  Quarterly  Review,"  vol.  cxlv.  p.  247. 

2  "  Letters  of  Runnymede,"  p.  6. 

^  Trevelyan's  "  Life  of  Macaulay,"  vol.  ii.  p.  76. 


196  THE   MOTHER   OF   PARLIAMENTS 

colleagues  gave  farmyard  imitations,  and  for  a  long  time  the 
whole  House  continued  in  a  state  of  ferment.  O'Connell's 
reference  to  the  sounds  emitted  by  honourable  gentlemen  as 
"  beastly  bellowings  "  only  made  matters  worse.  As  a  French 
visitor  who  was  present  during  this  scene  has  described  : 
"  Pendant  plusieures  heures  plus  de  cinq  cents  membres 
crient  dc  toutes  leurs  forces  '  a  I'ordre  !  a  la  porte  O'Connell ! ' 
le  tout  accompagn^  des  imitations  zoologiques  les  plus 
^tranges  et  les  plus  affreuses.  C'etaient  les  cris  de  deux 
armces  de  sauvages  en  presence."  ^ 

"  Imitations  zoologiques "  have  always  been  a  popular 
but  by  no  means  the  only  method  employed  by  members 
desirous  of  drowning  the  words  of  a  tiresome  speaker.  John 
Rolle,  the  hero  of  the  "  Rolliad,"  promoted  a  "  smoking  and 
spitting  party  "  to  interrupt  and  annoy  Burke.-  In  1784,  the 
latter  told  a  number  of  youthful  opponents  who  interrupted 
him  with  their  howls  that  he  could  teach  a  pack  of  hounds  to 
yelp  with  more  melody  and  equal  comprehension.  Ten  years 
before  the  O'Connell  scene  Brougham  excited  the  House 
to  uproar  of  a  similarly  puerile  character.  He  remained 
calm  and  unmoved,  however,  and,  when  the  bestial  cries  of 
his  audience  subsided  for  a  moment,  pleasantly  observed  that 
by  a  wonderful  disposition  of  nature  every  animal  had  its 
peculiar  mode  of  expressing  itself,  and  that  he  was  too  much 
of  a  philosopher  to  quarrel  with  any  of  those  modes — a 
remark  which  does  not  appear  to  have  subdued  the  clamour 
to  any  appreciable  extent.^  A  similar  uproar  which  the 
Speaker  was  powerless  to  quell  arose  in  1872,  when  Sir 
Charles  Dilke  brought  forward  a  motion  to  inquire  into  the 
manner  in  which  the  income  and  allowances  of  the  Crown 
were  spent. 

Members  who  are  anxious  to  bring  a  debate  to  a  close 
still  have  recourse  to  sound,  crying,  "'Vide!  'Vide!"  in  an 

*  "  La    France  et   L'Angleterre,"  par    F.   de  Tassies.    (Quoted  in 
O'Connell's  "Recollections,"  vol.  i.  p.  261.) 

'■^  Thomas  Moore's  "  Memoirs,"  vol.  ii.  p.  296. 

^  Miss  Martineau's  "  History  of  the  Peace,"  vol.  ii.  p.  381. 


DRESS  AND   DEPORTMENT  197 

earsplitting  fashion,  which  occasionally  evokes  a  rebuke  from 
the  Speaker.  But  there  is  seldom,  nowadays,  such  a  scene 
of  violence  as  occurred  in  both  Houses  upon  the  dissolution 
of  Parliament  in  April,  183 1.  The  Commons  indulged  in 
a  painful  scene  "of  bellowing,  and  roaring,  and  gnashing 
of  teeth,  which  it  was  almost  frightful  to  look  at,"  says 
Cockburn.*  In  the  Upper  House  peers  behaved  no  less 
childishly.  Lord  Mansfield  doubled  up  his  fist,  elbowed 
Lord  Shaftesbury  into  the  Chair,  and  hooted  Lord  Brougham 
as  he  left  the  House.^  Lord  Lyndhurst,  meanwhile,  was 
threatening  the  Duke  of  Richmond  with  physical  violence, 
and  the  uproar  was  only  quelled  by  the  arrival  of  the  King.^ 
One  must  not,  of  course,  forget  the  notorious  modern  instance 
of  ill  manners,  already  described,*  when,  in  1893,  members 
exchanged  blows  upon  the  floor  of  the  Commons.  This, 
however,  is  a  painful  exception,  little  likely  to  recur. 

Politicians  have  learnt  to  control  their  feelings,  and  the 
present  publicity  of  parliamentary  proceedings  acts  as  a 
salutary  deterrent  to  outbursts  of  the  elemental  passions. 
Neither  House  to-day  would  dream  of  expressing  its  emotion 
in  the  open  fashion  common  to  Parliaments  of  long  ago. 
The  sight  of  a  Lower  Chamber  dissolved  in  tears  is  no 
longer  possible.  Yet,  in  1626,  when,  by  the  King's  command, 
no  discussion  was  permitted  on  the  question  of  Bucking- 
ham's impeachment,  a  lachrymose  Speaker  led  the  whole 
House  of  Commons  in  a  chorus  of  weeping.  Two  years 
later  Sir  Edward  Coke  welcomed  the  introduction  of  the 
Petition  of  Right  in  a  voice  choked  with  sobs.  Wingfield 
wept  for  joy  when  monopolies  were  abolished  in  Queen 
Elizabeth's  reign,^  and  we  have  already  noted  the  tears  shed 
by  Colonel  Wanklyn  when  he  was  expelled,  and  by  Speaker 
Finch  when  he  was  forcibly  detained  in   the   Chair.     Fox 

1  Cockburn's  "Life  of  Jeffrey,"  vol.  i.  p.  317- 

-  Buncombe's  "  Life  of  his  Father,"  vol.  i.  p.  ii5- 

3  Brougham's  "  Life,"  vol.  iii.  p.  ii7- 

^  Supra,  p.  131. 

^  Townshend's  "  Proceedings  of  Both  Houses,"  p.  252. 


198  THE   MOTHER   OF   PARLIAMENTS 

shed  frequent  tears  in  the  House  of  Commons ;  Pitt  wept 
bitterly  when  his  friend,  Lord  Melville,  was  impeached. 
Lord  Chancellors,  too,  were  not  ashamed  to  express  their 
feelings  in  loud  sobs,  Eldon's  eyes  becoming  sympatheti- 
cally moist,  while  even  the  "  rugged  Thurlow  "  sprinkled  the 
Woolsack  with  his  tears. 

Members  no  longer  weep,  except  perchance  in  the  privacy 
of  their  own  homes ;  nor  do  they  follow  their  predecessors' 
fashion  of  converting  the  House  of  Commons  into  a  smoking- 
room  or  a  lounge,  in  which  to  sleep  off  the  effects  of  their 
potations.  The  free  and  easy  habits  of  seventeenth-century  poli- 
ticians made  it  necessary  for  a  regulation  to  be  framed  that 
"  No  tobacco  should  be  taken  by  any  member  in  the  gallery, 
nor  at  the  table  sitting  in  Committees."  ^  And  it  was  no 
uncommon  sight,  a  hundred  years  ago,  to  see  members 
stretched  at  full  length  on  the  benches  of  the  Chamber,  with 
their  feet  resting  on  the  backs  of  the  seats  in  front  of  them, 
punctuating  the  proceedings  with  their  stertorous  snores.^ 

Lord  North  was  notorious  for  his  gift  of  somnolence  in 
the  House  of  Commons.  "  Behold,"  said  Edmund  Burke, 
with  that  indifferent  taste  for  which  he  was  noted,  as  he 
pointed  to  the  recumbent  figure  of  the  Prime  Minister,  "  the 
Government,  if  not  defunct,  at  least  nods  ;  brother  Lazarus 
is  not  dead,  but  sleepcth."  North  was  dozing  on  another 
occasion  when  a  member  attacked  him  fiercely,  saying  that 
he  ought  certainly  to  be  impeached  for  his  misdeeds.  "  At 
least,"  exclaimed  the  Minister,  waking  for  a  moment,  "  allow 
me  the  criminal's  usual  privilege — a  night  of  rest  before  the 
execution !  "  ^  He  felt  no  shame  at  giving  way  to  slumber  in 
debate,  and  when  an  opponent  remarked  that  "  Even  in  the 
midst  of  these  perils,  the  noble  lord  is  asleep ! "  "I  wish  to 
God  I  was!"  he  replied  with  heartfelt  fervour.*     He  would 

'  Regulations  in  the  Journals,  March  23,  1693. 

^  "L'lllustre  enceinte  prcsente  souvent  I'aspect  d'une  assemblde  de 
yankccs  beaucoup  plus  que  celui  d'une  reunion  de  gentlemen.'"  Fran- 
queville's  "  Le  Gouvernement  et  le  rarlement  britaniques,"  vol.iii.  p.  74. 

^  Timbs'  "  Anecdotal  Biography,"  vol.  i.  p.  234. 

*  Pryme's  "  Recollections,"  p.  114. 


DRESS  AND   DEPORTMENT  199 

always  take  the  opportunity  afforded  by  a  lengthy  speech 
to  snatch  forty  winks.  Once,  when  the  long-winded  Colonel 
Barre  was  addressing  the  House  on  the  naval  history  of 
England,  tracing  it  back  to  the  earliest  ages,  North  asked 
a  friend  to  wake  him  up  as  soon  as  the  speaker  approached 
modern  times.  When  at  length  he  was  aroused,  "  Where 
are  we  ? "  asked  the  Premier,  anxiously.  "  At  the  battle 
of  La  Hogue,  my  lord."  "  Oh,  my  dear  friend,"  said  North, 
"  you've  woken  me  a  century  too  soon  !  "  ^ 

A  marked  improvement  in  the  conduct  of  modern  debate 
is  to  be  noticed  in  the  comparatively  inoffensive  character  of 
the  epithets  used  by  members  with  reference  to  their  opponents. 
The  decencies  of  debate  are,  as  a  rule,  religiously  observed. 
Recriminations  are  rare.  Measures  are  attacked,  not  men. 
The  secession  of  a  statesman  is  considered  a  political  but  not 
a  personal  offence,  and  what  Palmerston  once  called  the 
"  puerile  vanity  of  consistency  "  is  no  longer  worshipped  fanati- 
cally. Gladstone  rightly  called  the  House  of  Commons  a 
"school  of  temper,"  as  well  as  a  school  of  honour  and  of 
justice.  Offensive  allusions  have  always  been  deprecated 
there,  but  it  is  only  within  the  last  few  score  years  that 
members  have  controlled  their  tongues  to  any  appreciable 
extent  in  this  direction.  Hasty  remarks  are  nowadays  with- 
drawn at  the  first  suggestion  of  the  Speaker,  though  on  occasion 
an  apology  may  be  as  offensive  as  the  original  insult.  Lord 
Robert  Cecil  (afterwards  Lord  Salisbury)  said  of  a  speech  of 
Gladstone's  in  1861,  that  it  was  "worthy  of  a  pettifogging 
attorney."  Soon  afterwards  he  rose  in  the  House,  and  said 
that  he  wished  to  apologise  for  a  remark  he  had  lately  made. 
"  I  observed  that  the  speech  of  the  right  hon.  gentleman  was 
worthy  of  a  pettifogging  attorney,"  he  said,  "  and  I  now  hasten 
to  offer  my  apologies — to  the  attornies  !  " 

It  is  usual  nowadays  to  wrap  up  offensive  criticisms  in  a 

more  or  less  palatable  covering,  to  attack  by  inference  rather 

than  by  direct  assault.     "  I  am  no  party  man,"  said  Colonel 

Sibthorpe,  member  for  Lincoln,  after  the  dissolution  of  Sir 

'  Harford's  "  Recollections  of  Wilberforce,"  p.  94. 


200  THE   MOTHER  OF   PARLIAMENTS 

Robert  Peel's  Government  "  I  have  never  acted  from  party 
feelings  ;  but  I  must  say  I  do  not  like  the  countenances  of 
honourable  gentlemen  opposite,  for  I  believe  them  to  be  the 
index  of  their  minds.  I  can  only  say,  in  conclusion,  that 
I  earnestly  hope  that  God  will  grant  the  country  a  speedy 
deliverance  from  such  a  band."  ^  This  is  a  good  example  of 
an  unpleasant  thing  framed  in  a  manner  which  does  not  lay 
it  open  to  the  stigma  of  disorderly  language,  and  is  just  as 
effective  as  that  oft-quoted  attack  made  by  a  member  of  the 
Irish  House  of  Commons  on  George  Ponsonby  (afterwards 
Irish  Chancellor),  whose  sister  was  sitting  in  the  gallery  at  the 
time.  "  These  Ponsonbys  are  the  curse  of  my  country,"  said 
the  member  ;  "  they  are  prostitutes,  personally  and  politically 
— from  the  toothless  old  hag  who  is  now  grinning  in  the 
gallery  to  the  white-livered  scoundrel  who  is  now  shivering 
on  the  floor  ! "  ^ 

Members  who  consider  themselves  aggrieved  or  insulted 
have  now  no  redress  save  by  an  appeal  to  the  Speaker.  In 
old  days  they  often  took  the  matter  into  their  own  hands,  and 
many  a  duel  was  the  outcome  of  hasty  words  spoken  in 
Parliament.  So  prevalent,  indeed,  did  the  habit  of  duelling 
become,  that  in  1641  a  resolution  was  passed  in  the  Commons 
empowering  the  Speaker  to  arrest  any  member  who  either 
sent  or  received  a  challenge.  The  practice  of  parliamentary 
duelling  long  continued,  in  spite  of  every  effort  to  stifle  it. 
Wilkes  was  wounded  in  1763  in  Hyde  Park  by  a  member 
named  Martin,  who  had  called  him  "a  cowardly  scoundrel." 
Lord  Castlereagh  and  Canning  met  in  1S09,  and  had,  in 
consequence,  to  resign  their  seats  in  the  Cabinet.^  Lord 
Alvanley  fought  Morgan  O'Connell,  son  of  the  Liberator,  on 
his  father's  account.  Charles  James  Fox  was  challenged  by 
Mr.  Adam,  of  the  Ordnance  Department,  for  a  personal  attack 
made  in  the  House  of  Commons,  and  faced  him  in  the  old 
Kensington    Gravel    Pits.     At   the   first  shot  Adam's  bullet 


•fc.' 


'  Grant's  "Recollections,"  p.  140. 

2  Hayward's  "  Essays,"  pp.  364-5. 

3  Bell's  "  Life  of  Canning,"  p.  251. 


i 


THE   HOUSE  OF  COMMONS   IN  WALPOLE'S  DAY 

FKOM    THE    ENGRAVING   BY  A.  FOGG 
XHE  P.CURES  PKOM  ,.EPr  TO  K.GHT  --"-  ^--^.^.^''.^"v^^'coToN^™:  Zl^^^U 
'  ASSISTANT^ 


DRESS   AND   DEPORTMENT  201 

lodged  harmlessly  in  his  opponent's  belt.  "  If  you  hadn't 
used  Ordnance  powder,"  said  Fox,  with  a  laugh,  as  he  shook 
hands  with  Adam  after  the  fight, "  I  should  have  been  a  dead 
man."i 

If  duels  were  fought  in  those  days  on  very  slight  provoca- 
tion, challenges  were  also  occasionally  declined  on  equally 
poor  grounds.  Colonel  Luttrell,  member  for  Middlesex,  and 
afterwards  Lord  Carhampton,  refused  to  fight  his  own  father, 
not  because  he  was  his  father,  but  because  he  was  not  a 
gentleman  ! 

The  last  duel  between  politicians  was  that  fought  by  the 
Duke  of  Wellington  and  Lord  Winchelsea,  as  the  result  of 
some  remarks  made  by  the  latter  during  a  debate  on  the 
Roman  Catholic  Emancipation  Bill  in  1830.  Since  that  time 
no  parliamentary  dispute  has  been  referred  to  the  arbitrament 
of  the  pistol. 

Although  there  has  been  a  perceptible  improvement  in 
parliamentary  deportment  as  the  centuries  have  advanced, 
the  same  can  scarcely  be  said  of  parliamentary  dress.  In  the 
time  of  Charles  II.,  knee-breeches,  silk  stockings,  and  silver- 
buckled  shoes  were  absolutely  de  rigueur  for  members  of  the 
Commons,  A  hundred  years  later  members  of  Parliament 
always  wore  court  dress,  with  bag-wig  and  sword,  in  the 
House.  The  formal  costume  prescribed  by  etiquette  was 
rigidly  adhered  to,  and  none  but  county  members  were 
permitted  the  privilege  of  wearing  spurs.^  At  this  time,  too. 
Cabinet  Ministers  were  never  seen  in  Parliament  without  the 
ribbons  and  decorations  of  the  various  orders  to  which  they 
belonged.  The  regulation  which  bids  the  mover  and  seconder 
of  the  Address  to  appear  in  court  dress  on  the  first  day  of  the 
new  Parliament  is  the  only  relic  of  this  custom. 

Fifty  years  ago  no  member  of  either  House  would  have 
appeared  within  the  precincts  of  the  Palace  of  Westminster 
wearing  anything  upon  his  head  but  a  high  silk  hat.  Gradu- 
ally, however,  a  certain  laxity  in  the  matter  of  head-gear  has 

»  Pryme's  "  Recollections,"  p.  235. 

'-^  Lord  Colchester's  "  Diary,"  vol.  i.  p.  45. 


202  THE   MOTHER   OF   PARLIAMENTS 

crept  into  Parliament,  and  to-day,  not  only  "bowlers,"  but 
even  "  cricketing  caps "  may  be  seen  reposing  upon  the 
unabashed  heads  of  members.  Peers,  as  a  rule,  conform  to 
the  older  fashion,  and  Cabinet  Ministers  usually  dress  in  a 
respectably  sombre  garb.  But  among  the  rank  and  file  of 
the  House  of  Commons  may  occasionally  be  found  members 
wearing  check  suits  of  the  lightest  and  loudest  patterns,  and 
hats  of  every  conceivable  variety,  ranging  from  the  aesthetic 
"Homburg"  to  the  humble  cloth  cap.  The  passing  of  the 
top  hat  must  necessarily  appear  somewhat  in  the  light  of  a 
tragedy  to  older  parliamentarians.  In  both  Houses  the  hat 
has  long  come  to  be  regarded  as  a  sacred  symbol.  It  is  with 
this  article  of  clothing  that  the  member  daily  secures  his 
claim  to  a  seat  on  the  benches  of  the  House  of  Commons  ; 
with  a  hat  he  occasionally  expresses  his  enthusiasm  or  sym- 
pathy ;  on  a  hat  does  he  sit  at  the  close  of  a  speech,  with 
the  certainty  of  raising  a  laugh  ;  and  without  a  hat  he  cannot 
speak  upon  a  point  of  order  when  the  House  has  been  cleared 
for  a  division. 

When  the  Labour  Party  began  to  take  an  important  place 
in  the  popular  assembly,  it  was  thought  that  this  democratic 
invasion  would  have  an  actively  detrimental  effect  upon  the 
dress  of  the  House.  Old-fashioned  members  shook  their 
heads  and  prophesied  an  influx  of  hobnailed  artisans,  clad  in 
corduroys,  their  trousers  confined  at  the  knee  with  string, 
and  in  their  mouths  a  short  clay  pipe.  These  gloomy  fore- 
bodings have  not  been  realised.  With  very  few  exceptions 
the  dress  of  Labour  members  is  little  calculated  to  offend  the 
most  sensitive  eye,  though  it  was  certainly  one  of  their 
number  who  first  entered  a  startled  House  of  Commons  in  a 
tweed  stalking-cap — a  form  of  head-dress  which  it  is  certainly 
difficult  to  forgive. 


CHAPTER  XII 
PARLIAMENTARY   ELOQUENCE 

WHEN  Pitt  was  asked  what  he  considered  most  to  be 
lamented,  the  lost  books  of  Livy,  or  those  of  Tacitus, 
he  replied  that  to  the  recovery  of  either  of  these 
he  would  prefer  that  of  a  speech  by  Bolingbroke.  Not  a 
fragment  of  what  Dean  Swift  called  the  "  invincible  eloquence  " 
of  that  statesman  is  left  to  us.  But  though  we  are  compelled 
to  take  his  reputation  as  an  orator  on  trust,  we  should  do 
wrong  to  complain,  for  it  is  more  than  probable  that  a  perusal 
of  Bolingbroke's  speeches  to-day  would  prove  disappointing. 
"  Words  that  breathed  fire  are  ashes  on  the  page,"  and 
the  utterances  that  have  stirred  a  thousand  hearts  in  the 
Senates  of  old  days  too  often  leave  the  modern  reader  cold 
and  unmoved.  We  miss  the  inflections  of  a  magical  voice, 
the  stimulating  plaudits  of  friends  or  followers,  the  magnetism 
that  can  only  be  communicated  by  a  personal  intercourse 
between  a  speaker  and  his  audience.  The  reading  of  old 
speeches  is,  as  Lord  Rosebery  has  observed,  a  dreary  and 
reluctant  pilgrimage  which  few  willingly  undertake.  It 
supplies,  as  a  rule,  but  a  poor  explanation  of  the  effect  which 
the  eloquence  of  past  orators  produced  upon  their  contem- 
poraries. It  is  like  attending  an  undress  rehearsal  of  a  play 
in  an  empty  theatre  on  a  cold  winter's  afternoon.  The  glamour 
of  costume,  of  limelight,  is  lacking ;  the  atmosphere  of  appre- 
ciation, excitement,  enthusiasm,  is  absent.  The  difference 
between  the  spoken  and  the  published  oration  has  been  aptly 
defined  as  the  difference  between  some  magnificent  temple 
laid  open  to  the  studious  contemplation  of  a  solitary  visitant, 

203 


204  THE   MOTHER  OF   PARLIAMENTS 

and  the  same  edifice  beheld  amidst  the  fullest  accompani- 
ments of  sacrificial  movement  and  splendour,  thronged  with 
adoring  crowds,  and  resounding  with  solemn  harmonies.^ 

It  has  often  been  affirmed  that  no  speech  in  Parliament 
has  ever  resulted  in  the  winning  of  a  division.  Byron  declared 
that  "not  Cicero  himself,  nor  probably  the  Messiah,  could 
have  altered  the  vote  of  a  single  lord  of  the  Bedchamber  or 
Bishop."  ^  There  are,  however,  one  or  two  instances  of 
orations  which  have  been  so  moving  in  their  appeal  that  they 
may  claim  to  be  exceptions  to  this  rule.  Plunket's  famous 
speech  in  the  debate  on  Grattan's  motion  for  Catholic  Eman- 
cipation in  1807  is  said  to  have  gained  many  votes.  Macaulay 
won  the  support  of  several  opponents  by  an  eloquent  speech 
on  the  second  reading  of  Lord  Mahon's  Copyright  Bill  in 
1842,  and,  on  a  Bill  introduced  by  Lord  Hotham  to  exclude 
certain  persons  holding  offices  from  the  House  of  Commons, 
actually  caused  the  anticipated  majority  to  be  reversed. 

On  one  memorable  occasion  when  Sheridan,  with  that 
impassioned  oratory  for  which  he  had  already  become  famous, 
was  advocating  the  prosecution  of  Warren  Hastings,  the 
House  of  Commons  was  so  stirred  that  a  motion  for  adjourn- 
ment was  made  in  order  to  give  members  time  to  recover 
from  the  overpowering  cfTect  of  his  eloquence.^  Again,  during 
the  debate  on  Commercial  Distress  in  December,  1847,  Peel 
roused  the  fury  of  the  Protectionists  by  a  violent  and  able 
speech,  and,  when  he  resumed  his  seat,  an  adjournment  was 
moved  on  the  ground  that  the  House  was  not  in  a  condition 
to  vote  dispassionately.  Burke,  too,  seems  at  times  to  have 
stimulated  his  hearers  to  an  active  expression  of  their 
emotion  ;  and  when  he  was  lamenting  the  employment  of 
Indians  in  the  American  War,  a  fellow-member  was  so  moved 
that  he  offered  to  nail  a  copy  of  his  speech  upon  the  door  of 
every  church  in  the  kingdom.* 

*  "  Quarterly  Review,"  vol.  xxii.  p.  496. 
2  Moore's  "Life  of  Byron,"  185. 

^  Barnes'  "  Reminiscences,"  p.  203. 

*  Prior's  "  Life  of  Burke,"  vol.  i.  p.  337. 


PARLIAMENTARY   ELOQUENCE  205 

Yet  the  speeches  of  Burke  and  Sheridan  do  not  affect  us 
to-day  with  anything  but  a  mild  enthusiasm,  chiefly  founded 
upon  our  admiration  of  their  literary  excellence.  We  remain 
comparatively  indifferent  to  their  appeal ;  our  hearts  beat  no 
faster  as  we  read. 

Sheridan's  two  orations  on  the  subject  of  Warren  Hastings' 
impeachment — the  one  delivered  in  the  House  of  Commons 
on  February  7,  1787,  and  the  other  in  Westminster  Hall 
during  the  trial — have  been  considered  among  the  very  finest 
ever  made  in  Parliament.  It  was  after  the  first  of  these,  which 
lasted  for  five  hours,  that  the  House  adjourned  to  enable 
members  to  survey  the  question  calmly,  freed  from  the  spell 
of  the  enchanter.  Sheridan's  style,  according  to  Burke,  was 
*'  something  between  poetry  and  prose,  and  better  than 
either."  *  Even  the  fastidious  Byron  declared  him  to  be  the 
only  speaker  he  ever  wished  to  hear  at  greater  length.  He 
was  offered  ;!^iooo  by  a  publisher  for  his  great  "Begum 
Speech,"  if  he  would  but  consent  to  correct  the  proofs  ;  but 
for  long  he  refused.  Eventually  he  agreed  to  its  publication, 
but  by  that  time  popular  interest  had  subsided.^  As  much 
as  fifty  guineas  was  paid  for  a  seat  to  hear  his  speech  at  the 
trial  of  Hastings,  when,  as  Ben  Jonson  wrote  of  Bacon, 
"the  fear  of  every  man  that  heard  him  was  lest  he  should 
make  an  end."  ^ 

The  speeches  of  Burke,  whom  Macaulay  has  described 
as  the  greatest  man  since  Milton,  are  perhaps  the  most  suit- 
able for  perusal  of  any  ever  delivered  in  Parliament.  They 
read  better  than  they  sounded  as  delivered  ;  they  are  rather 
pamphlets  than  orations.  Burke  himself  was  deficient  in  many 
of  the  qualities  of  an  orator.  His  voice  was  harsh  and  his 
gestures  ungainly.  He  never  consulted  the  prejudices  of  his 
audience.  His  lapses  from  good  taste  were  frequent,  and 
among  his  most  splendid  passages  may  be  found  occasional 

1  Moore's  "  Life  of  Sheridan,"  vol.  i.  p.  523. 

2  Henever  received  the  promised  ^1000.  (See  Barrington's  "  Personal 
Sketches  of  His  Own  Times,"  vol.  i.  p.  429.) 

^  "  Cornwallis  Papers,"  vol.  i.  p.  364  n. 


206  THE   MOTHER   OF   PARLIAMENTS 

coarse  and  vulgar  epithets  and  expressions.  Yet  so  great 
was  his  eloquence,  so  marvellous  his  oratorical  powers,  that 
Byron  has  included  him  with  Pitt  and  Fox  among  the 
"  wondrous  three  whose  words  were  sparks  of  immortality." 
And  the  florid  Dr.  Parr  can  scarcely  find  words  sufficiently 
eulogistic  to  sing  his  praises.^ 

In  the  seventeenth  century  parliamentary  attendance  and 
eloquence  were  equally  poor.  Not  only  did  many  members 
speak  indifferently ;  at  times  there  would  be  long  intervals 
of  silence  when  members  did  not  speak  at  all.  "  A  pause  for 
two  or  three  minutes,"  ..."  The  House  sat  looking  at  each 
other,"  ^  are  some  of  the  entries  in  the  reports  which  must 
strike  the  modern  mind,  accustomed  to  the  present  House 
of  Commons,  as  peculiar,  Steele  described  the  House  of  his 
day  as  being  composed  of  silent  people  oppressed  by  the 
choice  of  a  great  deal  to  say,  and  of  eloquent  people  ignorant 
that  what  they  said  was  nothing  to  the  purpose.^ 

It  was  not  until  the  Georgian  age  that  parliamentary 
oratory  reached  its  heyday.  Then,  too,  speeches  began  to 
lengthen,  and  by  the  time  Lord  North  became  Prime  Minister 
it  was  not  unusual  for  a  member  to  address  the  House  for 
two  or  three  hours  on  end.  Lord  Brougham  once  spoke  for 
six  hours  on  the  amendment  of  the  law.  Even  in  Walpole's 
day  occasional  prolixity  was  not  unknown.  One  Hutcheson, 
member  for  Hastings,  when  the  Septennial  Bill  of  171 6  was 
under  discussion,  made  a  speech  of  which  the  summary  fills 
more  than  twenty-five  pages  of  the  Parliamentary  History.* 
Again,  when  David  Hartley,  a  notorious  bore,  rose  to  speak 
one  day,  Walpole  went  home,  changed  his  clothes,  rode  to 
Hampstead,  returned,  changed  once  more,  and  came  back 

'  "  Burke  ...  By  whose  sweetness  Athens  herself  would  have  been 
soothed,  with  whose  amplitude  and  exuberance  she  would  have  been 
enraptured,  and  on  whose  lips  that  prolific  mother  of  genius  and  science 
would  have  adored,  confessed,  the  Goddess  of  Persuasion.''  Prior's 
"  Burke,"  p.  484- 

'^  Townsend's  "  History  of  the  House  of  Commons,"  vol.  ii.  p.  427. 

3  Forster's  "Biographical  Essays,"  vol.  ii.  p.  197. 

^  Vol.  vii.  pp.  339-367. 


EDMUND   BURKE 

FROM    AN    ENGRAVINC;    HV   J.  WATSON    AFTER   THE    PAINTING    BY   SIR   J.   REYNOLDS 


PARLIAMENTARY   ELOQUENCE  207 

to  the  House  to  find  this  tiresome  member  still  upon  his 
legs.^ 

Chatham  was  the  first  statesman  to  make  a  habit  of 
delivering  long  speeches.  The  practice  was  never  popular, 
and  has  now  fallen  into  desuetude.  The  rising  to  his  feet 
of  a  tedious  member  has  ever  been  the  signal  for  the  House 
to  clear  as  though  by  magic.  Sergeant  Hewitt,  member 
for  Coventry  in  1761,  was  a  well-known  parliamentary 
emetic.  "  Is  the  House  up  ? "  asked  a  friend  of  Charles 
Townshend,  seeing  the  latter  leaving  St.  Stephen's  Chapel. 
"  No,"  replied  Townshend,  "  but  Hewitt  is  !  "  2  The  depar- 
ture of  his  audience  is,  however,  a  hint  to  which  the  habitual 
bore  is  generally  impervious.  A  dull  and  lengthy  speaker, 
addressing  empty  benches  in  the  House  of  Commons, 
whispered  to  a  friend  that  the  absence  of  members  did  not 
affect  him,  as  he  was  speaking  to  posterity.  "  If  you  go  on 
at  this  rate,"  was  the  unkind  reply,  "  you'll  see  your  audience 
before  you  !  "  ^ 

When  Gladstone  brought  in  his  first  Budget  in  1853  he 
spoke  for  five  hours.  He  had  been  advised  by  Sir  Robert 
Peel  to  be  long  and  diffuse,  rather  than  short  and  concise, 
seeing  that  the  House  of  Commons  was  composed  of  men  of 
such  various  ways  of  thinking,  and  it  was  important  to  put  his 
case  from  many  different  points  of  view  so  as  to  appeal 
to  the  idiosyncrasies  of  each.^  In  the  days  of  his  Premiership, 
however,  Gladstone's  speeches  were  considerably  shortened, 
and  even  the  introduction  of  so  momentous  and  intricate 
a  measure  as  the  Home  Rule  Bill  of  1886  was  accomplished 
in  three  and  a  half  hours.  Lengthy  speeches  are  no  longer 
fashionable,  though  Mr.  Biggar  spoke  for  four  hours  on  a 
famous  occasion  in  1890,  and  Mr.  Lloyd  George  occupied 
the  same  time  in  unfolding  the  much-discussed  Finance  Bill 
of  1909. 

1  Pryme's  "  Recollections,"  p.  218  n. 

-  O'Flanaghan's  "  Lives  of  the  Irish  Chancellors,"  vol.  ii.  p.  128. 

3  Townsend's  "  House  of  Commons,"  vol.  ii.  p.  394. 

*  Morley's  "  Life  of  Gladstone,"  vol.  i.  p.  143. 


208  THE   MOTHER   OF   PARLIAMENTS 

Though  the  oratorical  masterpieces  of  the  past  may,  for 
the  most  part,  be  dull  reading,  to  the  student  or  historian  they 
must  always  prove  interesting  and  instructive,  as  revealing 
those  peculiar  qualities  which  appeal  to  a  parliamentary 
audience.  They  explain  to  a  certain  extent  what  it  is  that 
a  speech  must  possess  in  order  to  meet  with  the  approval 
of  either  House. 

Parliament — and  more  especially  the  House  of  Commons 
— is  no  very  lenient  critic  ;  but  it  is  a  sound  one.  It  pardons 
the  faults  of  style  or  manner  due  to  inexperience  ;  it  tolerates 
homeliness  that  is  the  outcome  of  sincerity.  It  has  a  keen 
eye  for  motives,  and  anything  pretentious  or  dishonest  is  an 
abomination  to  it.  Matter  is  of  far  greater  importance  than 
manner,  and  Parliament  agrees  with  Sir  Thomas  More  that 
whereas  "  much  folly  is  uttered  with  pointed  polished  speech, 
so  many,  boisterous  and  rude  in  language,  see  deep  indeed, 
and  give  right  substantial  counsel."^  Sincerity,  in  fact,  has 
far  more  influence  in  the  House  of  Commons  than  either 
brilliancy  or  wit,  and  any  attempt  at  platform  heroics  is  certain 
to  fail.  There  is  nothing  the  House  is  so  fond  of,  Shell 
used  to  say,  as  facts.'^  There  is  nothing  it  so  much  resents, 
we  might  now  add,  as  violations  of  good  taste.  This 
fastidiousness  is  no  doubt  of  modern  growth,  for  we  find 
Burke's  coarseness  readily  condoned,  and  Sheil  himself 
lapsing  into  occasional  vulgarity.^ 

Like  all  assemblies  of  human  beings,  Parliament  has 
always  welcomed  an  opportunity  for  laughter.  In  the  House 
of  Commons  the  poorest  joke  creates  amusement ;  the  man 
who  sits  upon  his  hat  at  once  becomes  a  popular  favourite ; 
a  "bull"  is  ever  acceptable.  When  Sheridan,  in  1840, 
attacked    another   member,   saying,  "There  he   stands,  Mr. 

'  Roper's  "  Life  of  More,"  p.  16. 

-  MacCullagh's  "  Memoirs  of  Sheil,"  vol.  ii.  p.  99. 

^  Speaking  on  Church  reform,  Sheil  once  said  that  when  this  was 
efTected,  "  the  bloated  paunch  of  the  unwieldy  rector  would  no  longer 
heave  in  holy  magnitude  beside  the  shrinking  abdomen  of  the  starving 
and  miserably  prolific  curate."     Francis's  "  Orators,"  p.  274. 


PARLIAMENTARY   ELOQUENCE  209 

Speaker,  like  a  crocodile,  with  his  hands  in  his  pockets, 
shedding  false  tears ! "  the  House  rocked  with  laughter.^ 
Yet  the  phrase  did  not  originate  with  Sheridan,  but  was  one 
of  the  many  "  bulls  "  that  had  been  coined  by  that  prince  of 
bull-makers.  Sir  Boyle  Roche.  It  was  Roche  who  declared 
that  he  could  not  be  in  two  places  at  once  "  like  a  bird  "  ;  who 
attempted  to  "  shunt  a  question  by  a  side-wind " ;  and 
announced  that  he  was  prepared  to  sacrifice  not  merely  a  part 
but  the  whole  of  the  Constitution  to  preserve  the  remainder  ! 
"  What,  Mr.  Speaker!"  he  inquired  on  a  famous  occasion  in  the 
Irish  House  of  Commons,  "  are  we  to  beggar  ourselves  for 
fear  of  vexing  posterity  ?  Now,  I  would  ask  the  honourable 
gentleman,  and  this  still  more  honourable  House,  why  we 
should  put  ourselves  out  of  our  way  to  do  anything  for 
posterity  ;  for  what  has  posterity  done  for  us  t "  ^ 

"  The  House  loves  good  sense  and  joking,  and  nothing 
else,"  said  Sir  T.  F.  Buxton,  in  1819 ;  "and  the  object  of  its 
utter  aversion  is  that  species  of  eloquence  which  may  be 
called  Philippian."  ^  Sentimentality  of  any  kind  is  rarely 
tolerated  in  Parliament,  as  may  be  seen  by  the  indifference 
with  which  Burke's  dagger  and  Lord  Brougham's  melo- 
dramatic prayer  were  greeted.  When  Bright,  during  the 
Crimean  War,  delivered  himself  of  that  famous  phrase, 
"  The  Angel  of  Death  has  been  abroad  throughout  the  land  ; 
you  may  almost  hear  the  beating  of  its  wings ! "  it  was  a 
question  as  to  how  members  would  take  so  sentimental  a 
simile.  Had  the  speaker  substituted  the  word  "  flapping  " 
for  "  beating,"  as  Cobden  afterwards  observed  to  him,  they 
would  have  roared  with  laughter. 

The  House  of  Commons,  as  a  writer  has  remarked,  is  a 
body  without  any  principles  or   prejudices,  except  against 

*  Raikes's  "  Journal,"  vol.  ii.  p.  256. 

-  Barrington's  "Personal  Sketches,"  vol.  i.  p.  213.  (Curran  once 
made  a  happy  retort  to  Roche,  "  Do  not  speak  of  my  honour,"  said  the 
latter,  "  I  am  the  guardian  of  my  own  honour."  "  Faith  !  "  answered 
Curran,  "  I  knew  that  at  some  time  or  other  you  would  accept  a  sinecure." 
Philips's  "  Life  of  Curran,"  p.  59.) 

"^  "  Memoirs,"  p.  89. 
P 


210  THE  MOTHER   OF   PARLIAMENTS 

bores.  "He  who  comes  to  it  with  a  good  reputation  has  no 
better  chance  than  he  who  besieges  it  with  a  bad  one.  It 
rejects  all  pretensions  it  has  not  of  itself  justified,  and  all 
fame  it  has  not  itself  conferred."^  It  has,  indeed,  always 
been  remarkable  for  a  great  reluctance  in  confirming  reputa- 
tions for  oratory  gained  elsewhere.  Wilkes  could  sway  the 
populace  with  his  grandiloquent  declamations,  but  failed 
ignominiously  in  Parliament ;  Kenealy  was  refused  a  hearing. 
The  chastening  effect  of  the  Lower  House  is  notorious,  and 
many  a  conceited,  self-opiniated  individual  has  found  his 
level  after  a  brief  course  of  subjection  to  what  Sir  James 
Mackintosh  called  the  "  curry-comb  of  the  House  of 
Commons."  ^ 

Besides  bores  and  demagogues,  of  which  it  is  justly 
intolerant,  the  House  of  Commons  may  at  one  time  be 
said  to  have  numbered  lawyers  among  its  pet  aversions. 
The  latter  are  apt  to  lecture  their  fellow-members  as  though 
they  were  addressing  a  jury,  explaining  the  most  patent  facts, 
and  generally  assuming  a  didactic  air  which  the  House  finds 
it  difficult  to  brook.^  This  perhaps  explains  the  failure  of 
such  distinguished  men  as  Lord  Jeffrey  and  Sir  James 
Mackintosh,  both  eloquent  lawyers  who  made  little  or  no 
mark  in  Parliament,  and  of  many  other  "gentlemen  of  the 
long  robe,"  as  Disraeli  contemptuously  called  them. 

Speaking  in  Parliament  is  indeed  a  matter  very  different 
to  addressing  an  audience  in  the  country,  on  the  hustings,  or 
in  some  local  town  hall.  The  platitudes  that  evoke  such 
enthusiasm  when  delivered  from  a  village  platform  fall  very 
flat  in  either  House.  The  chilling  atmosphere  and  sparse 
attendance  of  the  Lords  is  not  conducive  to  feelings  of  self- 
confidence  :    the    critical    gaze    of    fellow-members    in    the 

'  Whitty's  "  History  of  the  Session"  (1852-3),  p.  7. 

•  "Journal,"  vol.  i.  p.  342. 

2  "Accustomed  in  their  courts  to  consider  every  matter  of  equal 
importance,"  says  Barnes,  "they  adopt  the  same  earnest  and  stiff 
solemnity  of  manner,  whether  they  are  disputing  about  violated  morality 
or  insulted  liberty,  or  about  a  petty  affray  where  a  hat,  value  one  shilling, 
has  been  torn  in  a  scuftle."     "  Parliamentary  Sketches,"  p.  79. 


PARLIAMENTARY   ELOQUENCE  211 

Commons  is  little  calculated  to  alleviate  a  sudden  paroxysm 
of  shyness. 

The  unknown  parliamentary  speaker  is  greeted  with  a 
respectful  but  ominous  silence  when  he  rises  to  his  feet. 
He  misses  the  applause  of  electors  or  tenantry  to  which  he 
is  accustomed  in  his  constituency  or  on  his  estate.  He  has 
no  table  on  which  to  place  his  sheaf  of  notes  ;  there  is  no 
water-bottle  at  hand  to  moisten  his  parched  lips  or  give  him 
a  moment's  pause  when  the  stream  of  his  eloquence  runs 
temporarily  dry.  He  cannot  choose  the  best  moment  for 
delivering  his  speech,  but  must  be  content  to  take  such 
opportunities  as  are  afforded  by  circumstances.  In  the 
House  of  Commons  a  member  may  have  waited  half  the 
night  to  catch  the  elusive  eye  of  the  Speaker — though  a 
man  who  wishes  to  make  his  maiden  speech  is  usually 
accorded  this  privilege — and,  by  the  time  his  turn  comes, 
most  of  his  choicest  and  brightest  thoughts  have  already 
been  anticipated  by  former  speakers.  It  is  not,  therefore,  to 
be  wondered  at  that  many  men  find  themselves  unequal  to 
the  task  of  passing  successfully  through  this  ordeal,  and  that 
the  maiden  speech  of  a  future  statesman  has  often  proved  a 
complete  fiasco. 

In  1 601,  we  read  of  a  Mr.  Zachary  Lock,  a  member  who 
"  began  to  speak,  who  for  very  fear  shook,  so  that  he  could  not 
proceed,  but  stood  still  awhile,  and  at  length  sat  down."  ^  This 
same  experience  has  since  befallen  many  another  politician. 
The  bravest  men  become  inarticulate  in  similar  circumstances. 
After  the  naval  victory  of  June  i,  1794,  Vice- Admiral  Sir 
Alan  Gardiner  received  a  vote  of  thanks  from  the  House 
of  Commons,  and,  though  he  had  taken  the  precaution  of 
fortifying  himself  with  several  bottles  of  Madeira,  could 
scarcely  summon  up  courage  to  mumble  a  reply.^  And  in 
our  own  time  we  have  seen  another  gallant  officer  overcome 
with  "  House-fright "  to  such  an  extent  as  to  be  unable  to 
deliver  the  message  which,  in  his  official  capacity  as  Black 

>  D'Ewes'  "Journal,"  p.  666. 

2  "  Life  of  Sidmouth,"  vol.  i.  p.  119. 


212  THE   MOTHER   OF   PARLIAMENTS 

Rod,  he  had  brought  to  the  Commons.  John  Bright  never 
rose  in  the  House  without  what  he  called  "  a  trembling 
of  the  knees."  Gladstone  was  always  intensely  nervous 
before  a  big  speech.  Disraeli  declared  that  he  would 
rather  lead  a  forlorn  hope  than  face  the  House  of 
Commons. 

A  good  description  of  the  sensations  felt  by  a  panic- 
stricken  member  making  his  debut  is  given  by  Lord  Guilford, 
son  of  Lord  North,  whose  appearance  in  the  House  was  brief,  if 
not  exactly  meteoric.  "  I  brought  out  two  or  three  sentences," 
he  says,  **  when  a  mist  seemed  to  rise  before  my  eyes.  I  then 
lost  my  recollection,  and  could  see  nothing  but  the  Speaker's 
wig,  which  swelled  and  swelled  and  swelled  till  it  covered  the 
whole  House."  ^ 

The  failure  of  a  first  speech  has  not  always  been  the 
presage  of  a  politician's  future  non-success,  Addison  broke 
down  on  the  only  occasion  on  which  he  attempted  to  address 
the  House,  yet  he  reached  high  office  as  Irish  Secretary 
before  he  had  been  nine  years  in  Parliament.^  Walpole's 
first  speech  was  a  complete  failure,  as  was,  in  a  lesser  degree, 
Canning's,  though  both  were  listened  to  in  silence.  Even  the 
silver-tongued  Sheridan  himself  made  a  poor  impression  upon 
the  House  with  his  earliest  effort.  After  delivering  his 
maiden  speech,  he  sought  out  his  friend  Wood  fall,  who 
had  been  sitting  in  the  gallery,  and  asked  for  a  candid 
opinion.  "  I  don't  think  this  is  your  line,"  said  Woodfall. 
"  You  had  much  better  have  stuck  to  your  former  pursuits." 
Sheridan  pondered  for  a  moment.     "It  is  in  me,"  he  said  at 

>  Harford's  "  Recollections  of  Wilberforce,"  p.  95.  (Guilford  hastily 
resumed  his  seat,  shortly  afterwards  applied  for  the  Chiltern  Hundreds, 
and  retired  into  comfortable  obscurity.) 

'■^  His  first  effort  in  the  Irish  House,  in  1709,  was  singularly  abortive. 
"Mr.  Speaker,  I  conceive "  he  began.  "Mr.  Speaker,  I  con- 
ceive  ''  he  stammered  out  again.  Shouts  of  "  Hear  !  hear  !  "  encou- 
raged him.     "I    conceive,   Mr.    Speaker "   he   repeated,  and  then 

collapsed.  A  cruel  colleague  at  once  rose  and  remarked  that  the  hon. 
gentleman  had  conceived  three  times  and  brought  forth  nothing ! 
O'Flanagan's  "  Irish  Chancellors,"  vol.  ii.  p.  8. 


mS^ 


./^' 


ma 


RICHARD   BRINSLEY   SHERIDAN 

FROM    AN    ENGRAVING    P.Y  J.   HALL    AFTER   THE    I'AINTING    BY   SIR   J.  REYNOLDS 


i 


PARLIAMENTARY   ELOQUENCE  213 

length  with  conviction,  "  and,  by  God,  it  shall  come  out ! "  ^ 
It  certainly  did. 

Disraeli,  as  is  well  known,  was  not  even  listened  to,  and 
had  to  bring  his  maiden  speech  to  an  abrupt  end.  "  The 
time  will  come  when  you  shall  hear  me ! "  he  exclaimed 
prophetically  as  he  resumed  his  seat.  Such  treatment 
was,  however,  unusual,  for  though  the  House  of  Commons 
is  occasionally,  as  Pepys  called  it,  a  beast  not  to  be 
understood,  so  variable  and  uncertain  are  its  moods,  new 
members  are  commonly  accorded  a  patient  and  attentive 
hearing. 

Sometimes  a  momentary  breakdown  has  been  retrieved 
under  the  stimulus  of  encouraging  cheers  from  the  House, 
and  an  infelicitous  beginning  has  led  to  an  eloquent  perora- 
tion. Lord  Ashley,  afterwards  Earl  of  Shaftesbury,  had  pre- 
pared a  speech  on  behalf  of  the  Treason  Bill  of  1695,  which 
enacted  that  all  persons  indicted  for  high  treason  should 
have  a  copy  of  the  indictment  supplied  to  them  and  be 
allowed  the  assistance  of  counsel.  He  was,  however,  so 
overcome  with  nervousness  on  rising  to  his  feet,  that  he  could 
not  proceed.  Wittily  recovering  himself,  "  If  I,  who  rise 
only  to  give  my  opinion  on  the  Bill  now  depending, 
am  so  confounded  that  I  am  unable  to  express  the  least 
of  what  I  proposed  to  say,"  he  observed,  "  what  must  be  the 
condition  of  that  man  who  without  any  assistance  is  pleading 
for  his  life,  and  is  under  apprehensions  of  being  deprived  of 
it  ? "  He  thus  contrived  to  turn  his  nervousness  to  good 
account.  Again,  when  Steele  was  brought  to  the  bar  for 
publishing  "  The  Crisis,"  a  young  member.  Lord  Finch, 
whose  sister  Steele  had  defended  in  the  "  Guardian  "  against 
a  libel,  rose  to  make  a  maiden  speech  on  behalf  of  his  friend. 
After  a  few  confused  sentences  the  youthful  speaker  broke 
down  and  was  unable  to  proceed.  "  Strange,"  he  exclaimed, 
as  he  sat  down  in  despair,  "  that  I  cannot  speak  for  this  man, 
though  I  could  readily  fight  for  him !  "  This  remark  elicited 
so  much  cheering  that  the  member  took  heart,  rose  once 
1  Moore's  "  Life  of  Sheridan,"  vol.  i.  p.  348. 


214  THE   MOTHER   OF   PARLIAMENTS 

more,  and  made  an  able  speech,  which  he  subsequently 
followed  up  with  many  another.^ 

Although  early  failure  is  no  sure  gauge  of  a  politician's 
reputation  or  worth,  many  a  happy  first  speech  has  raised 
hopes  that  remained  eternally  unfulfilled.  In  the  eighteenth 
century  James  Erskine,  Lord  Grange,  made  a  brilliant 
maiden  effort  in  the  Commons  and  was  much  applauded. 
But  the  House  soon  grew  weary  of  his  broad  Scots  accent, 
and  after  hearing  him  patiently  three  or  four  times,  gradually 
ceased  to  listen  to  him  altogether.^  William  Gerard  Hamilton, 
secretary  to  Lord  Halifax  (Lord-Lieutenant  of  Ireland),  and 
afterwards  Irish  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer,  though  not 
fulfilling  Bolingbroke's  definition  of  eloquence,^  earned  the 
title  of  "  single-speech  Hamilton  "  by  one  display  of  oratory 
which  was  never  repeated. 

It  is  customary  for  the  parliamentary  novice  to  crave  the 
indulgence  of  the  House  for  such  faults  of  manner  or  style 
as  may  be  the  result  of  youth  or  inexperience.  This  modest 
attitude  on  the  part  of  a  speaker  inspires  his  audience 
favourably  ;  they  become  infused  with  a  glow  of  conscious 
superiority  which  is  most  agreeable  and  inclines  them  to 
listen  with  a  kindly  car  to  the  utterances  of  the  budding 
politician.  Not  always,  however,  is  this  humility  expressed. 
William  Cobbett  began  his  maiden  speech  on  January  29, 
1833,  by  remarking  that  in  the  short  period  during  which  he 
had  sat  in  the  House  he  had  heard  a  great  deal  of  vain  and 
unprofitable  conversation.*  Hunt,  the  Preston  demagogue, 
showed  his  contempt  for  the  Commons  and  his  own  self- 
assurance  by  speaking  six  times  on  six  different  subjects 
on  the  very  first  night  of  his  introduction.^     William  Cowper, 


'  Forster's  "Biographical  Essays,"  vol.  ii.  p.  195. 

-  Dr.  King's  "  Anecdotes  of  His  Own  Time,"  p.  114. 

■''  "  Eloquence,"  said  Bolingbroke,  "  must  flow  like  a  stream  that 
is  fed  by  an  abundant  spring,  and  not  spout  forth  a  little  frothy  water  on 
some  gaudy  day  and  remain  dry  the  rest  of  the  year." 

'  Calling's  "  Historical  Characters,"  vol.  ii.  p.  175. 

"  Barrow's  "  Mirror  of  Parliament  "  (1830). 


PARLIAMENTARY   ELOQUENCE  215 

afterwards  Lord  Chancellor,  addressed  the  House  three 
times  on  the  day  he  took  his  seat. 

In  the  House  of  Lords,  too,  can  be  heard  maiden  speeches 
delivered  in  many  varying  styles.  One  perhaps  may  be 
made  by  an  ex-Cabinet  Minister,  a  distinguished  member 
of  Parliament  recently  promoted  to  the  Upper  House, 
apologising  in  abject  tones  for  his  lack  of  experience,  and 
commending  his  humble  efforts  to  the  indulgence  of  his 
audience.  Another  emanates  from  some  youthful  noble- 
man who  has  just  succeeded  to  a  peerage,  whose  political 
experience  has  yet  to  be  won,  and  who  addresses  his  peers 
in  the  didactic  fashion  of  a  headmaster  lecturing  a  form 
of  rather  unintelligent  schoolboys.  It  is  not  so  very  long 
ago  that  a  young  peer — who  has  since  made  the  acquaintance 
of  most  divisions  of  the  Supreme  Court,  from  the  Bankruptcy 
to  the  Divorce — astonished  and  entertained  his  colleagues  by 
closing  his  peroration  with  a  fervent  prayer  that  God  might 
long  spare  him  to  assist  in  their  lordships'  deliberations. 

There  is  a  golden  mean  between  the  two  styles,  the 
humble  and  the  haughty,  which  it  is  well  for  the  embryo 
politician  to  cultivate  before  he  attempts  to  impress 
Parliament  with  his  eloquence. 

Oratory  has  been  defined  in  many  different  ways  by 
many  different  writers.  Lord  Chesterfield  and  Dr.  Johnson, 
respectively,  described  it  as  the  power  of  persuading  people, 
or  of  beating  down  an  adversary's  arguments  and  putting 
better  ones  in  their  place.  The  business  of  the  orator, 
according  to  Sir  James  Mackintosh,  is  to  state  plainly,  to 
reason  calmly,  to  seem  transported  into  vehemence  by  his 
feelings,  and  roused  into  splendid  imagery  or  description  by 
his  subject,  but  always  to  return  to  fact  and  argument,  as 
that  on  which  alone  he  is  earnestly  bent.^  Gladstone,  again, 
defined  oratory  as  the  speaker's  power  of  receiving  from  his 
audience  in  a  vapour  that  which  he  pours  back  upon  them 
in  a  flood. 

Oratory  is   perhaps   the   gift   of  the   gods,  but   skill   in 

1  Sir  J.  Mackintosh's  "  Memoirs,"  vol.  ii.  p.  192. 


2i6  THE   MOTHER   OF   PARLIAMENTS 

speaking  is  undoubtedly  an  art  that  can  be  acquired  by 
practice,  if  sought  diligently  and  with  patience.  Demosthenes 
gloried  in  the  smell  of  the  lamp ;  Cicero  learnt  every  speech 
by  heart.  The  former  would  go  down  to  the  seashore  on  a 
stormy  day,  fill  his  mouth  with  pebbles,  and  speak  loudly  to 
the  ocean,  thus  accustoming  himself  to  the  murmur  of 
popular  assemblies  ;  the  latter  on  one  occasion  rehearsed 
a  speech  so  diligently  that  he  had  little  strength  left  to 
deliver  it  on  the  following  day.  The  sight  of  a  modern 
politician  sitting  on  the  pier  at  Brighton  delivering  a  marine 
address  as  intelligibly  as  a  mouthful  of  gravel  would  permit, 
is  one  that  would  only  excite  fccl»ngs  of  alarm  in  the  bosoms 
of  his  friends  ;  the  thought  of  a  Cabinet  Minister  fainting 
before  his  looking-glass,  as  the  result  of  an  excessive  rehearsal 
of  his  peroration,  is  more  pathetic  than  practical.  There  is, 
however,  nothing  to  prevent  a  member  of  Parliament  from 
practising  his  elocution  upon  the  trees  of  the  forest,  as 
Grattan  did,^  or  upon  the  House  of  Commons  itself,  and  it  is 
thus  alone  that  he  will  acquire  proficiency  in  that  art  in 
which  it  is  so  desirable  for  the  statesman  to  excel.  "  It  is 
absolutely  necessary  for  you  to  speak  in  Parliament,"  Lord 
Chesterfield  wrote  to  his  long-suffering  son.  "  It  requires 
only  a  little  human  attention  and  no  supernatural  gifts."  '■* 

Charles  James  Fox  resolved,  when  young,  to  speak  at 
least  once  every  night  in  the  House.  During  five  whole 
sessions  he  held  manfully  to  this  resolution,  with  the  excep- 
tion of  one  single  evening — an  exception  which  he  afterwards 
regretted.  He  thus  became  the  most  brilliant  debater  that 
ever  lived,  "vehement  in  his  elocution,  ardent  in  his  language, 
prompt  in  his  invention  of  argument,  adroit  in  its  use."  ^  He 
was,  however,  too  impetuous  to  be  as  great  an  orator  as  his 

^  Grattan  used  to  walk  about  the  park  at  Windsor  haranguing  the 
oaks  in  a  loud  voice.  A  passer-by  once  found  him  apostrophising  an 
empty  gibbet.  "  How  did  you  get  down  .'"' asked  the  stranger  politely. 
O'Flanagan,  "  Irish  Chancellors,"  vol.  ii.  p.  416. 

-  Letters,  vol.  ii.  pp.  328-9. 

'   "  Lord  Colchester's  Diary,"  vol.  i.  p.  23. 


PARLIAMENTARY   ELOQUENCE  217 

rival  Pitt,  whose  majestic  eloquence  was  almost  divine/  and 
offended  continually  by  the  tautology  of  his  diction  and  the 
constant  repetition  of  his  arguments.  The  hesitation  and 
lack  of  grace  of  his  delivery  detracted  greatly  from  the  force 
of  his  speeches ;  the  keenness  of  his  sabre,  as  Walpole  said, 
was  blunted  by  the  difficulty  with  which  he  drew  it  from  the 
scabbard.^  In  a  comparison  of  the  two  statesmen,  Flood 
calls  Pitt's  speeches  "  didactic  declamations,"  and  those  of 
Fox  "argumentative  conversations."^ 

It  was  said  that  it  required  great  mental  exertion  to  follow 
Fox  while  he  was  speaking,  but  none  to  remember  what  he 
had  said  ;  but  that  it  was  easy  to  follow  Pitt,  but  hard  to 
remember  what  there  was  in  his  speech  that  had  pleased  one. 
The  difference  between  the  two  men  was  the  difference 
between  the  orator  and  the  debater.  It  resulted  largely  from 
the  fact  that  the  one  gave  much  time  to  the  preparation  of  his 
speeches,  while  the  other  relied  upon  the  inspiration  of  the 
moment.  Pitt,  as  Porson  says,  carefully  considered  his 
sentences  before  he  uttered  them  ;  Fox  threw  himself  into 
the  middle  of  his,  "  and  left  it  to  God  Almighty  to  get  him 
out  again."  ^  If  the  former  was  the  more  dignified  as  a 
speaker,  the  latter  scored  by  being  always  so  terribly  in 
earnest.  Grattan,  who  affirmed  that  Pitt's  eloquence  marked 
an  era  in  the  senate,  that  it  resembled  "  sometimes  the  thunder, 
and  sometimes  the  music,  of  the  spheres,"  and  admitted  that 
Pitt  was  right  nine  times  for  once  that  Fox  was  right,  declared 
that  that  once  of  Fox  was  worth  all  the  other  nine  times 
of  Pitt.5 

No  doubt  the  Parliament  of  those  days  was  not  so  critical 
a  body  as  it  has  since  become.     Lord  Chesterfield,  at  least, 

'  "  Pitt  spoke  like  ten  thousand  angels,"  wrote  Richard  Grenville  to 
George  Grenville  in  November,  1742  ("Grenville  Papers,"  vol.  i.  p.  19). 

2  "  Memoirs,"  vol.  i.  p.  490. 

^  Prior's  "  Life  of  Malone,"  p.  361. 

■*  Samuel  Roger's  "  Recollections,"  p.  80. 

■^'  "Memoirs  of  Thomas  Moore,"  vol.  iv.  p.  215.  (Francis  Hovirard 
compared  Pitt's  eloquence  to  Handel's  music,  see  "Memoirs  of  Francis 
Howard,"  vol.  i.  p.  149.) 


2i8  THE   MOTHER  OF  PARLIAMENTS 

held  it  in  the  profoundest  contempt.  "  When  I  first  came 
into  the  House  of  Commons,"  he  says,  "  I  respected  that 
assembly  as  a  venerable  one  ;  and  felt  a  certain  awe  upon 
me ;  but,  upon  better  acquaintance,  that  awe  soon  vanished  ; 
and  I  discovered  that,  of  the  five  hundred  and  sixty,  not 
above  thirty  could  understand  reason,  and  that  all  the  rest 
•were  pmple ;  that  those  thirty  only  required  plain  common- 
sense,  dressed  up  in  good  language  ;  and  that  all  the  others 
only  required  flowing  and  harmonious  periods,  whether  they 
conveyed  any  meaning  or  not  ;  having  ears  to  hear,  but  not 
sense  enough  to  judge."  ^  This  scathing  indictment  of  the 
intelligence  of  the  Commons  may  possibly  have  been  true  at 
the  time  when  it  was  written :  it  would  certainly  not  be 
applicable  to-day.  Meaningless  periods,  however  harmonious, 
are  no  longer  tolerated.  In  Lord  Chesterfield's  day,  however, 
sound  seems  to  have  been  more  important  than  sense,  as  may 
be  gathered  from  an  account  he  gives  elsewhere  of  a  speech 
made  in  175 1  in  the  House  of  Lords.  He  was  speaking  upon 
a  Bill  for  the  Reform  of  the  Calendar,  a  subject  upon  which 
he  knew  absolutely  nothing.  To  conceal  his  ignorance  he 
conceived  the  idea  of  giving  the  House  an  historical  account 
of  calendars  generally,  from  Ancient  Egyptian  to  modern 
times,  being  particularly  attentive  to  the  choice  of  his 
words,  to  the  harmony  of  his  periods,  and  to  his  elocution. 
The  peers  were  enchanted.  "  They  thought  I  informed,"  he 
explains,  "  because  I  pleased  them  ;  and  many  of  them  said 
that  I  had  made  the  whole  very  clear  to  them,  when,  God 
knows,  I  had  not  even  attempted  it."  "^ 

The  gift  of  oratory  is  most  certainly  heaven-born,  but  its 
development  demands  a  vast  amount  of  purely  mundane 
labour.  The  best  speeches  have  ever  been  those  in  the  pre- 
paration of  which  the  most  time  and  trouble  have  been 
expended.  Burke's  masterpieces  were  essays,  laboriously 
constructed  in  the  study  ;  Sheridan's  elaborate  impromptus 
were     carefully     devised     beforehand,     and,     if     successful, 

'  "  LeUers  to  his  Son,"  vol.  ii.  p.  329. 
-  "  Letters,"  ii.  121. 


PARLIAMENTARY   ELOQUENCE  219 

occasionally  repeated.^  Chatham,  whose  wonderful  dominion 
over  the  House  does  not  perhaps  appear  in  his  speeches, 
chose  his  words  with  the  greatest  care,  and  confided  to  a 
friend  that  in  order  to  improve  his  vocabulary  he  had  read 
"  Bailey's  Dictionary  "  twice  through  from  beginning  to  end. 

The  fervid  eloquence  of  such  men  as  Plunket,  Macaulay, 
Brougham,  and  Canning — "  the  last  of  the  rhetoricians  " — was 
the  fruit  of  many  an  hour  of  laborious  thought  and  study. 
Canning  especially  never  spared  himself.  He  would  draw  up 
for  use  in  the  House  a  paper,  on  which  were  written  the 
heads  of  the  subjects  which  he  intended  to  touch  upon.  These 
heads  were  numbered,  and  the  numbers  sometimes  extended 
to  four  or  five  hundred.  Lord  North,  when  he  lost  the  thread 
of  his  discourse,  would  look  through  his  notes  with  the 
utmost  nonchalance,  seeking  the  cue  which  was  to  lead  him 
to  further  flights  of  eloquence.  "  It  is  not  on  this  side  of  the 
paper,  Mr.  Speaker,"  he  would  declaim,  still  speaking  in  his 
oratorical  tone;  "neither  is  it  on  the  other  side!"  Then, 
perhaps,  he  would  suddenly  come  upon  the  desired  note,  and 
continue  his  unbroken  oration  without  a  sign  of  further 
hesitation.^  Bright  used  to  provide  himself  with  small  slips 
of  paper,  inscribed  with  his  bon-mots,  which  he  drew  from  his 
pocket  as  occasion  required.  He  excelled,  nevertheless,  in 
scathing  repartee.  Once,  during  his  absence  through  illness, 
a  noble  lord  stated  publicly  that  Bright  had  been  afflicted  by 
Providence  with  a  disease  of  the  brain  as  a  punishment  for 
his  misuse  of  his  talents.  "  It  may  be  so,"  said  Bright,  on 
his  return  to  the  House,  "but  in  any  case  it  will  be  some 
consolation  to  the  friends  and  family  of  the  noble  lord  to 
know  that  the  disease  is  one  which  even  Providence  could 
not  inflict  upon  him."  ^     He  did  not  always  get  the  best  of 

'  "  The  hon.  gentleman  has  applied  to  his  imagination  for  his  facts, 
and  to  his  memory  for  his  wit,"  is  a  remark  he  made  in  different  forms 
on  more  than  one  occasion.  See  Harford's  "  Wilberforce,"  p.  167  ; 
Brougham's  "  Sketches,"  vol.  iii.  p.  294,  etc. 

-  Stapleton's  "  Life  of  Canning,"  p.  21. 

3  "  Men  and  Manners  in  Parliament,"  pp.  56-59. 


220  THE   MOTHER   OF   PARLIAMENTS 

it,  however,  and  when  he  ridiculed  Lord  John  Manners  for 

the  youthful  couplet — 

*'  Let  wealth  and  commerce,  laws  and  learning  die, 
But  leave  us  still  our  old  nobility  ! " 

the  author  justly  retorted  that  he  would  far  sooner  be  the 
foolish  young  man  who  wrote  those  lines  than  the  malignant 
old  man  who  quoted  them. 

That  speeches  should  be  as  effective  when  read  as  when 
delivered  is  the  highest  quality  of  oratory.  For  this  reason, 
perhaps,  some  speakers  write  out  their  speeches  and  commit 
them  to  memory.  Disraeli  did  so  with  his  more  important 
orations,  a  fact  which  greatly  enhances  the  pleasure  of  their 
perusal.  Macaulay  followed  the  same  practice,  and,  indeed, 
it  is  said  that  the  excessive  elaboration  of  his  oratory  some- 
times weakened  its  effect.  Lord  Randolph  Churchill's  earlier 
speeches  were  all  memorised  in  this  fashion.  But  it  is  not 
every  man  whose  memory  is  sufficiently  retentive  to  enable 
him  to  accomplish  this  feat,  and  a  breakdown  in  the  very 
middle  of  a  humorous  anecdote  thoughtfully  interspersed  in 
a  speech  is  a  catastrophe  which  casts  ridicule  upon  the 
speaker.^ 

Though  matter  may  be  a  most  important  element  in  parlia- 
mentary speaking,  manner  undoubtedly  counts  for  a  good  deal. 
Demosthenes  practised  declaiming  with  sharp  weapons  sus- 
pended above  him  so  as  to  learn  to  keep  still,  and,  as  we  have 
already  seen,  had  some  obscure  reason  for  filling  his  mouth  with 
pebbles.  Neither  of  these  practices  is  to  be  commended  to 
modern  orators,  many  of  whom  already  speak  as  though  their 
mouths  were  filled  with  hot  potatoes,  while  their  habitual 
gesticulations,  if  made  in  the  neighbourhood  of  dependent 
cutlery,  would  result  in  reducing  their  bodies  to  one  huge 
wound.  Sir  Watkin  Wynne  and  his  brother  were  long  known 
in   the  House  of  Commons  as  "  Bubble  and  Squeak,"  the 

1  Mr.  R.  Tennant,  member  for  Belfast,  in  1834,  on  O'Connell's  motion 
for  a  repeal  of  the  Union,  made  a  speech  which  he  had  learnt  by  heart 
and  sent  to  the  papers,  which  lasted  three  and  a  half  hours.  Grant's 
"  Recollections,"  p.  66. 


PARLIAMENTARY   ELOQUENCE  221 

former's  voice  being  a  smothered  mumble  suggestive  of 
suppressed  thunder,  the  latter's  a  childish  treble.  Mannerisms 
of  gesture,  as  well  as  of  speech,  are  easily  contracted.  Lord 
Mahon,  "  out-roaring  torrents  in  their  course,"  reinforced  his 
stentorian  lungs  by  violent  gestures  which  were  at  times  a 
source  of  bodily  danger  to  his  friends.  Once,  when  speaking 
on  a  Bill  he  had  brought  in  for  the  suppression  of  smuggling, 
he  declared  that  this  crime  must  be  knocked  on  the  head 
with  one  blow.  To  emphasize  his  meaning,  he  dealt  the 
unfortunate  Pitt,  who  was  sitting  just  in  front  of  him,  a 
violent  buffet  on  the  head,  much  to  the  amusement  of  the 
House.^  The  gesticulations  of  Sir  Charles  Wctherell,  the 
well-known  member,  were  less  dangerous,  if  quainter.  He 
used  to  unbutton  his  braces  in  a  nervous  fashion  while  address- 
ing the  House,  leaving  between  his  upper  and  lower  garments 
an  interregnum  to  which  Speaker  Manners  Sutton  once  alluded 
as  the  honourable  gentleman's  only  lucid  interval.  The  late 
Lord  Goschen  would  grasp  himself  firmly  by  the  lapel  of  his 
coat,  as  though  (to  quote  a  well-known  parliamentary  writer) 
"  otherwise  he  might  run  away  and  leave  matters  to  explain 
themselves."  ^ 

Parliamentary  eloquence  to-day  makes  up  in  quantity  for 
what  it  lacks  in  quality.  The  number  of  members  who  follow 
the  advice  of  the  Psalmist  and  earn  a  reputation  for  wisdom 
by  a  continual  policy  of  eloquent  silence^  has  dwindled  to 
vanishing  point,  since  to  speak  in  Parliament  has  come  to  be 
regarded  as  part  of  a  member's  duty  to  his  constituents. 
In  Gladstone's  first  session,  in  1833,  less  than  6000  speeches 
were  made  in  the  House  of  Commons  ;  fifty  years  later  the 
number  had  increased  to  2I,CXD0  ;  to-day  the  steadily  growing 

'  Wraxall's  "  Memoirs,"  vol.  iii.  p.  402. 

-  "  Men  and  Manners  in  Parliament,"  p.  109.  (Further  on  the  writer 
describes  the  peculiarities  of  another  member  who  used  to  fold  his  arms 
tightly  across  his  chest  when  he  spoke.  Thereafter  a  constant  struggle 
went  on,  the  arms  restlessly  battling  to  get  free,  and  the  speaker  insisting 
that  they  should  remain  and  hear  the  speech  out,  p.  130.) 

^  "  Even  a  fool,  when  he  holdeth  his  peace,  is  counted  wise  ;  and  he 
that  shutteth  his  lips  is  esteemed  a  man  of  understanding." 


222  THE   MOTHER   OF  PARLIAMENTS 

bulk  of  each  volume  of  the  "  Parliamentary  Debates  "  testifies 
to  the  swelling  flood  of  oratory  which  is  annually  let  loose 
within  the  precincts  of  Parliament.  And  if  La  Rochefoucauld's 
maxim  be  true,  that  we  readily  pardon  those  who  bore  us, 
but  never  those  whom  we  bore,  the  House  of  Commons  has 
need  of  a  most  forgiving  spirit  to  listen  patiently  to  so  much 
of  what  can  only  be  described  as  vox  et  praeterea  nihil. 

The  level  of  eloquence  is,  no  doubt,  higher  in  the  House 
of  Lords  than  elsewhere.  Peers  include  a  greater  number 
of  orators  among  their  numbers  ;  opportunities  for  a  dis- 
play of  their  talents  are  more  rare  ;  their  powers  are  not 
dissipated  in  prolonged  debat'^s,  as  in  the  Commons,  but 
are  reserved  for  full-dress  occasions. 

In  neither  House  nowadays  is  there  any  exhibition  of 
that  old-fashioned  rhetoric,  florid  and  flamboyant,  which  was 
once  so  popular.  What  Mackintosh  calls  "  an  elevated  kind 
of  after-dinner  conversation,"  such  as  Lord  Salisbury  affected 
so  successfully,  is  the  form  taken  by  modern  parliamentary 
eloquence.  There  are  no  appeals  to  sentiment,  no  quotations 
from  the  classics,  no  bombastic  declamations.*  The  House 
of  Commons  is  still  "  a  mob  of  gentlemen,  the  greater  part 
of  whom  arc  neither  without  talent  nor  information,"  ^  and 
with  such  an  audience  learned  generalities  are  out  of  place. 
Passion  has  to  a  large  extent  given  way  to  business,  and  in 
Parliament  to-day  are  rarely  heard  those  "  splendid  common- 
places of  the  first-rate  rhetorician,"  which  Lord  Morley 
considers  necessary  to  sway  assemblies. 

We  live  in  a  material  age.  The  flowers  of  rhetoric  bloom 
no  longer  in  the  cold  business-like  atmosphere  of  the  parlia- 
mentary garden  ;   only  the  more  practical  but  unromantic 

*  "  Don't  quote  Latin.  Say  what  you  have  to  say  and  then  sit  do\vn  !  " 
was  the  Duke  of  Wellington's  excellent  advice  to  a  young  member. 
Walter  Bagehot,  on  the  other  hand,  stated  that  he  had  heard  an 
experienced  financier  say,  "If  you  want  to  raise  a  certain  cheer  in  the 
House  of  Commons,  make  a  general  panegyric  on  economy ;  if  you 
want  to  invite  a  sure  defeat,  propose  a  particular  saving ! "  "  The 
English  Constitution,"  p.  136. 

-  Dalling's  "  Historical  Characters,"  vol.  ii.  p.  39. 


PARLIAMENTARY   ELOQUENCE  223 

vegetables  remain.  The  rich  embroideries  of  trope  and 
metaphor  have  been  roughly  torn  from  modern  speech, 
leaving  the  bare  skeleton  of  reason  exposed  to  the  public 
gaze.  The  grandiose  orator  of  the  past,  with  his  ornate 
phraseology,  his  graceful  periods,  his  quotations  from  the 
poets,  has  been  ousted  by  the  passionless  debater,  flinging, 
like  the  improvident  O'Connell,  his  brood  of  robust  thoughts 
into  the  world,  without  a  rag  to  cover  them.  No  one  to-day 
would  dream  of  expending  fifty  shillings — let  alone  fifty 
guineas — for  the  privilege  of  hearing  a  modern  Sheridan 
address  a  twentieth-century  Parliament ;  no  modern  Grattan 
(as  Sheil  might  say)  shatters  the  pinnacles  of  this  establish- 
ment with  the  lightning  of  his  eloquence. 

The  successful  parliamentary  speaker  is  no  longer  one 
who  is  able,  in  the  words  of  Macaulay,  to  produce  with 
rapidity  a  series  of  stirring  but  transitory  impressions,  to 
excite  the  minds  of  five  hundred  gentlemen  at  midnight, 
without  saying  anything  that  any  of  them  will  remember 
in  the  morning.^  Rather  is  he  the  cold  judicious  politician 
who  chooses  his  words  less  for  their  beauty  than  for  their 
immunity  from  subsequent  perversion,  who  can  crystallise 
in  a  few  brief  sentences,  within  the  compass  of  a  few  minutes, 
the  opinions  that  it  would  have  taken  his  ancestors  as  many 
hours  to  express  in  the  turgid  rhetoric  of  a  bygone  age.  The 
orator — as  the  name  was  once  understood — is  now  a  rara 
avis,  but  seldom  raising  his  tuneful  voice  above  the  raucous 
cawing  of  his  fellows.  And  whoever  feels  with  Gibbon  that 
the  great  speakers  fill  him  with  despair,  and  the  bad  ones 
with  terror,  will  leave  the  precincts  of  Parliament  to-day  more 
often  terrorstricken  than  desperate.  That  this  should  be  so 
is  no  reason  for  giving  way  to  gloom  or  sorrow.  Parlia- 
mentary eloquence  is  not  necessarily  the  sign  of  a  country's 
greatness.  The  English  Parliament,  which  began  by  acclaim- 
ing Burke  as  the  prince  of  orators,  soon  became  indifferent  to 
his  powers,  and  ended  by  labelling  him  the  "  Dinner  Bell." 
Fox  has  left  no  memorial  of  any  good  wrought  by  his 
'  "  Essays,"  vol.  ii.  p.  206. 


224  THE   MOTHER  OF   PARLIAMENTS 

oratory.  "  Neither  the  Habeas  Corpus  Act,  nor  the  Bill  of 
Rights,  nor  Magna  Charta  originated  in  eloquence,"  and  if 
it  be  true  that  "  a  senate  of  orators  is  a  symptom  of  material 
decay,"  ^  we  may  look  forward  to  the  future  of  England  with 
calm  and  perfect  confidence. 

*  Sir  H.  Crabb  Robinson's  *'  Diary,  Reminiscences  and  Correspon- 
dence," vol.  i.  p.  330. 


•*.. 


CHAPTER    XIII 
PARLIAMENT  AT  WORK— (i) 

IN  their  efforts   to  grapple    successfully    with   the    ever- 
increasing  mass  of  business  brought  before  them,  modern 

Parliaments  show  a  tendency  to  prolong  their  labours  to 
an  ever-increasing  extent.  Each  succeeding  session  lengthens, 
as  Macaulay  said,  "  like  a  human  hair  in  the  mouth." 

In  Tudor  times  the  statutes  to  be  passed  were  few  in 
number,  and  the  time  occupied  in  legislation  was  consequently 
short.  Members  returned  by  "  rotten "  boroughs  had  no 
temptation  to  be  prolix  ;  their  seats  did  not  depend  upon 
their  parliamentary  exertions,  and  their  speeches  were  there- 
fore commendably  brief  Parliament  to-day  is  often  censured 
for  the  sterility  of  its  legislative  output,  but  during  the  seven- 
teenth and  eighteenth  centuries  legislation  in  the  modern 
sense  of  the  word  scarcely  existed  at  all.  Its  time  was  chiefly 
spent  in  the  discussion  of  libellous  books  and  in  disputes  over 
constitutional  questions  of  privilege. 

October  and  November  were  the  months  fixed  for  the 
meeting  of  Parliament  in  Hanoverian  times,  and  the  pro- 
rogation usually  took  place  in  April.  From  1S05  to  1820 
it  met  after  Christmas.  Since  1820  February  has  been 
the  month  generally  chosen.  Nowadays,  not  only  have 
the  sessions  grown  much  longer — even  the  feast  of  St. 
Grouse  on  the  12th  of  August  is  no  longer  observed  by 
politicians — but  the  hours  of  each  sitting  have  been  con- 
siderably extended.  The  session  of  1847  was  prolonged  over 
293  days  ;  the  Parliament  of  1852  met  on  November  4  and 
sat  until  August  20  of  the  following  year,  and  during  the 
last  two  months  of  that   session  the    House  of    Commons 

o  225 


226  THE   MOTHER   OF   PARLIAMENTS 

continued  sitting  for  fifteen  out  of  every  twenty-four  hours. 
In  1908,  which  contained  two  sessions,  the  House  sat  for  253 
days,  and  the  session  of  1909  lasted  fron:!  February  16  till 
December  3,  during  the  latter  weeks  of  which  all-night 
sittings  were  of  the  commonest  occurrence. 

In  proportion  as  the  daily  labours  of  the  Legislature 
increased  the  hour  for  commencing  work  became  later  and 
later.  In  Charles  I.'s  time  Parliament  often  met  as  early  as 
7  a.m.,  and  would  sit  until  twelve,  the  afternoon  being 
devoted  to  the  work  of  the  committees.^  Later  on  the  hour 
of  meeting  was  fixed  for  8  or  9  a.m.,  and  the  House  usually 
rose  at  4  p.m.,  or  earlier.  The  Commons  always  showed  the 
strongest  disinclination  to  sit  in  the  afternoon,  either  because 
the  midday  meal  did  not  leave  them  in  a  fit  condition  to 
legislate,  or  because  no  regular  provision  was  made  for  light- 
ing the  House  when  twilight  fell.  "  This  council  is  a  grave 
council  and  sober,"  said  a  member  in  1659,  and  "ought  not 
to  do  things  in  the  dark,"  and  the  Speaker  would  occasionally 
regard  his  inability  to  distinguish  one  member  from  another 
as  a  sufficient  excuse  for  adjourning  the  House.-  The  practice 
of  sitting  regularly  after  dark  did  not  commence  until  the 
year  1717,  when,  by  an  order  of  the  House,  the  Sergcant-at- 
Arms  was  directed  to  bring  in  candles  as  soon  as  daylight 
failed.  Prior  to  that  year  the  employment  of  artificial  light 
had  to  be  made  the  subject  of  a  special  motion,  and  Sergeants 
were  sometimes  reprimanded  for  providing  candles  without 
the  necessary  order. 

During  the  eighteenth  and  nineteenth  centuries  the  hours 
of  sitting  varied  from  time  to  time.  Up  to  1888  the  House 
of  Commons  sat  from  10  a.m.  until  3.45  p.m.  In  that 
year  the  time  for  meeting  was  fixed  at  3  p.m.  and  this  was 
subsequently  postponed  for  an  hour. 

•  On  Sunday,  August  8,  1641,  both  Houses  attended  divine  service  at 
St.  Margaret's  Church  at  6  a.m.,  after  which  they  sat  in  the  House  all 
the  morning,  and  in  the  afternoon  the  King  met  them  in  the  banqueting 
room  at  Whitehall.     "  Duirnall  Occurrences,"  p.  So. 

*  Forster's  "  Grand  Remonstrance,"  p.  342. 


PARLIAMENT  AT  WORK  227 

Saturday  and  Sunday  have  long  been  recognised  as 
regular  parliamentary  holidays,  and  on  one  other  day  in  the 
week — either  a  Wednesday  or  Friday — the  House  of  Commons 
has  adjourned  at  an  earlier  hour  than  usual.  This,  however, 
was  not  always  the  case.  In  Stuart  times  Parliament  some- 
times sat  on  Sunday  and  even  on  Christmas  Day,^  and  it  was 
on  a  Sunday — December  18,  1831 — that  the  Reform  Bill 
was  read  a  second  time.  This,  however,  was  an  excep- 
tional instance,  the  adjournment  over  Saturday  having  been 
initiated  by  Sir  Robert  Walpole,  who,  as  a  keen  sportsman, 
was  always  anxious  to  get  away  to  the  country,  and  believed 
that,  as  Dryden  says,  it  were : 

"  Better  to  hunt  in  fields  for  health  unbought, 
Than  fee  the  doctor  for  his  noxious  draught." 

In  more  recent  times  it  became  the  fashion  to  adjourn  the 
House  on  Derby  Day,  in  order  to  allow  legislators  to  take 
part  in  the  sport  of  kings.  In  1872,  this  adjournment  was 
made  the  subject  of  a  heated  debate,  and  though  the  division 
that  ensued  resulted  in  a  large  majority  for  the  holiday- 
makers,  the  claims  of  sport  gradually  gave  way  to  the  more 
pressing  demands  of  business,  and  ten  years  later,  when  the 
Prevention  of  Crimes  (Ireland)  Act  was  under  discussion,  the 
matter  was  considered  too  serious  to  allow  of  the  usual  Derby 
Day  adjournment.  The  late  Sir  Wilfrid  Lawson  once 
cynically  argued  that  if  the  Derby  Day  became  a  recognised 
official  holiday  the  Speaker  of  the  House  of  Commons  ought 
to  go  to  Epsom  in  his  State-coach,  "  as  he  did  at  the  thanks- 
giving for  the  Prince  of  Wales's  recovery."  The  game  of 
politics  is  nowadays  treated  more  gravely  than  ever,  and  the 
most  frivolous  of  modern  politicians  would  scarcely  dream  of 
suggesting  that  the  stern  business  of  Westminster  should  be 
deserted  for  the  pleasures  of  Epsom  Downs.  The  House  of 
Lords  has  always,  until  a  year  or  two  ago,  adjourned  over 
Ash  Wednesday  and  Ascension  Day,  on  the  ground  that  if 
they  met  they  would  be  taken  to  Church  at  the  Abbey ;  but 

'  Elsynge's  "Ancient  Method  of  Holding  Parliaments,"  pp.  114-115. 


228  THE   MOTHER   OF   PARLIAMENTS 

lately  they  have  braved  this  terror  and  nothing  so  serious  has 
happened. 

Prior  to  1882  the  House  of  Lords  met  at  five  o'clock  in  the 
afternoon  ;  they  now  meet  three-quarters  of  an  hour  earlier.  ^ 
Except  under  circumstances  of  special  pressure  they  take 
holidays  on  Friday  and  Saturday,  and  Sunday  is,  of  course, 
for  them,  as  for  everybody  else,  a  day  of  complete  rest. 
Occasionally  on  other  days  the  amount  of  work  to  be 
undertaken  in  the  Upper  House  is  so  small  as  to  be  accom- 
plished in  a  few  minutes.  The  Lords,  as  has  been  irreverently 
observed,  often  sit  scarcely  long  enough  to  boil  an  egg,  and  it 
is  only  towards  the  end  of  the  session  that  they  are  compelled 
to  extend  their  deliberations  beyond  the  dinner-hour.'' 

The  labours  of  the  Commons  are  more  arduous,  and  entail 
longer  hours  of  sitting.  On  Monday,  Tuesday,  Wednesday, 
and  Thursday  the  House  meets  at  2.45  p.m.  and  continues 
sitting  until  ii  p.m.,  unless  the  day's  business  has  been 
disposed  of  before  that  hour.  At  eleven  o'clock  the  Speaker 
interrupts  business,  after  which  no  opposed  matter  can  be 
dealt  with,  but,  by  a  Standing  Order,  it  is  permissible  for  a 
Minister  of  the  Crown,  at  the  commencement  of  the  day's 
work,  to  move  the  suspension  of  the  eleven  o'clock  rule.  In 
this  case  no  interruption  takes' place  until  the  business  under 
discussion  is  finished. 

All-night  sittings  are  not  uncommon  nowadays,  but  in 
former  times  they  occurred  but  rarely.  In  1742,  the  Speaker 
once  sat  in  the  Chair  for  seventeen  hours  at  a  stretch,  and 
some  fifty  years  later  we  find  the  Commons  keeping  an 
occasional  all-night  vigil.  Sir  Samuel  Romilly  left  the 
House  one  evening  to  go  to  bed,  and  returned  the  next 
morning  to  find  his  colleagues  still  sitting.  He  began  his 
speech  by  saying   that    he  made  no  apology  for   rising   to 

^  The  judicial  sittings  of  the  House  begin  at  10.30  a.m. 

2  The  proceedings  very  often  resemble  those  of  the  old  Irish  House  of 
Lords,  which  we  find  recorded  in  the  Journals  as  "  Prayers.  Ordered, 
that  the  Judges  be  covered.  Adjourned."  See  Charlemont's  "  Memoirs," 
vol.  i.  p.  103. 


PARLIAMENT   AT   WORK  229 

address  the  House  at  such  a  time,  as  seven  o'clock  was  his 
usual  hour  for  "getting  up."  ^  In  1877,  the  Commons  sat 
for  a  day  and  night,  and  again  in  188 1,  the  sitting  on  the 
latter  occasion  lasting  forty-one  hours  ;  and  since  that  day 
many  sittings  have  been  prolonged  over  the  twenty-four 
hours.  In  1909,  the  House  sat  after  i  a.m.  o'clock  on  no  less 
than  thirty-seven  occasions,  after  4  a.m.  on  ten  occasions,  and 
once  as  late  as  nine  o'clock  in  the  morning. 

Friday  is,  so  to  speak,  a  half-holiday  for  the  Commons. 
On  that  day  the  House  meets  at  noon,  the  interruption  of 
business  occurs  at  five  o'clock,  and,  no  matter  what  subject  is 
under  discussion,  the  House  adjourns  at  5.30  p.m.  Before 
1902,  Wednesday  was  the  day  chosen  for  the  short  sitting, 
but  the  desire  of  many  members  to  escape  from  London  at 
the  end  of  the  week  led  to  a  change,  and  it  is  now  possible 
for  representatives  from  the  most  distant  parts  of  England  to 
pay  flying  weekly  visits  to  their  homes  or  constituencies. 

For  a  few  years  recently  the  House  of  Commons  always 
enjoyed  an  evening  interval  for  dinner,  but  this  agreeable 
adjournment  was  reluctantly  sacrificed  in  1906,  and  the 
"  Speaker's  chop  "  is  now  nothing  but  a  fragrant  memory.  The 
dinner-hour  is  much  too  precious  to  be  wasted  at  any  table 
other  than  that  of  the  House,  for  at  8.15  on  many  days  any 
private  business  not  disposed  of  at  the  beginning  of  the  sitting 
is  given  precedence  of  all  else,  and  what  is  known  as 
"  opposed  "  private  business  is  also  taken  between  that  hour 
and  9.30  p.m.^ 

For  the  information  of  members  a  daily  "notice  paper" 
is  published  in  two  editions — a  blue  edition  in  the 
morning,  and  a  white  one  in  the  early  afternoon — con- 
taining the  orders  of  the  day  and  all  notices  of  motions. 
To  this   is   attached   the  "votes  and  proceedings,"  division 

'  Palgrave's  "  House  of  Commons,"  p.  45. 

-  The  fact  of  any  single  member  taking  objection  to  a  motion  is 
sufficient  to  include  it  among  "  opposed  "  business,  and  in  an  assembly 
of  partisans  it  would  be  too  much  to  expect  that  any  private  member's 
Bill  should  avoid  giving  grounds  of  objection  to  at  least  one  opponent. 


230  THE   MOTHER  OF  PARLIAMENTS 

lists,  and  an  account  of  the  business  accomplished  at  the  last 
sitting.  In  the  "  order  book  "  of  the  House,  also  published 
daily,  is  a  list  of  all  future  business  definitely  assigned  to  any 
particular  sitting;  while  once  a  week  a  catalogue  of  all 
Public  Bills  that  have  been  introduced,  and  some  report  of 
their  progress,  is  also  included. 

By  no  means  the  least  arduous  of  the  many  labours  of 
Parliament  are  those  which  are  undertaken  by  legislators 
serving  upon  the  various  Committees,  of  which  the  public 
knows  so  little,  but  whose  work  is  very  necessary  to  the 
carrying  on  of  public  business. 

The  appointment  of  Select  Committees  in  both  Houses 
has  been  practised  ever  since  the  earliest  days  of  Parliament. 
The  duties  of  these  subsidiary  bodies,  which  may  be  appointed 
for  any  purpose,  are  prescribed  by  the  terms  of  the  reference  : 
they  may  collect  facts  for  future  legislation,  investigate 
conduct,  or  examine  the  terms  of  a  liill  referred  to  them,  thus 
saving  the  time  of  the  House.  To  them  go  all  opposed 
Private  Bills,  when  counsel  appear  to  argue  the  merits  of 
clashing  interests. 

The  system  of  Committees  perhaps  originated  in  the 
conferences  held  in  former  times  by  the  two  Houses  in  the 
Painted  Chamber.  There  are  records  of  small  deliberative 
bodies,  somewhat  similar  in  character  to  the  modern  Com- 
mittees, in  the  middle  of  the  sixteenth  century.  By  the 
time  Queen  Elizabeth  came  to  the  throne  such  Committees 
were  common,  and  were  usually  composed  of  members  of  one 
or  other  House.  Select  Committees  did  not  exist  until  the 
eighteenth  century,  and  were  originally  semi-judicial  in 
character. 

All  members  of  the  House  of  Commons  are  subject  to  be 
called  upon  to  serve  on  Select  Committees,  being  chosen  for 
the  purpose  by  a  Committee  of  Selection,  and  the  work  thus 
done  outside  the  actual  Chamber  adds  considerably  to  the 
daily  labours  of  politicians.  No  member  may  refuse  to  serve, 
if  called  upon  to  do  so,  and  when,  in  1846,  Mr.  Smith  O'Brien 
declined  to  sit  on  an  English  Railway  Committee,  he  was 


PARLIAMENT  AT   WORK  231 

confined  in  the  Clock  Tower  in  the  custody  of  the  Sergeant- 
at-Arms. 

The  whole  House  can  also  resolve  itself  at  any  time  into 
a  Committee,  when  its  function  becomes  one  of  "  deliberation 
rather  than  inquiry."  *  Every  Public  Bill  not  referred  to  a 
Grand  Committee  must  be  considered  in  a  Committee  of 
the  Whole  House,  and,  indeed,  the  greater  part  of  each 
session  is  occupied  by  this  stage  of  legislation.  The  Com- 
mittee of  Supply  and  the  Committee  of  Ways  and  Means 
are  both  "  Committees  of  the  Whole  House,"  and  are 
appointed  to  discuss  the  financial  projects  of  the  Govern- 
ment, the  one  to  supervise  expenditure,  the  other  to  devise 
taxation. 

A  Committee  of  the  Whole  House  differs  in  no  respect 
from  the  House  itself,  save  that  it  is  presided  over  by  a 
chairman  in  place  of  the  Speaker,  and  that  the  mace  is 
removed  from  the  Table.  There  are  also  some  changes  in 
the  procedure  of  debate,  as,  for  example,  the  cancelling  of 
the  rule  forbidding  a  member  to  speak  twice  on  the  same 
question. 

The  idea  of  forming  the  House  itself  into  a  committee 
has  developed,  like  so  many  parliamentary  institutions, 
gradually  and  almost  unconsciously.  In  days  when  the 
Speaker  was  too  often  the  spy  of  the  King  it  was  considered 
advisable  to  get  rid  of  him,  and  this  could  best  be  done  by 
turning  the  House  into  a  Committee  and  putting  some  other 
member  in  the  Chair. 

The  Chairman  of  Committees  in  the  Lords,  and  the 
Chairman  of  Ways  and  Means,  or  his  deputy,  in  the  Commons, 
takes  the  Chair  when  the  House  is  in  Committee,  but  it  is 
permissible  for  either  House  to  nominate  any  one  of  their 
number  as  a  temporary  Chairman.^ 

»  May,  p.  430- 

^  In  1 64 1,  during  the  Long  Parliament,  Hyde  was  appointed  Chair- 
man of  Committees,  so  as  to  get  him  out  of  the  way,  that  he  might  not 
obstruct  business  by  too  much  speaking.  Parry's  "Parhaments  of 
England,"  p.  354. 


232  THE   MOTHER   OF   PARLIAMENTS 

As  a  substitute  for  Committees  of  the  Whole  House  in  the 
Commons,  two  large  Standing  Committees,  sometimes  called 
Grand  Committees,  numbering  from  sixty  to  eighty  members, 
are  appointed  to  consider  respectively  all  Bills  relating  to  Law 
and  Trade  committed  to  them  by  the  House.  Besides  the 
smaller  committees  already  referred  to  there  are  Sessional 
Committees,  appointed  for  each  session,  consisting  of  from 
eight  to  twelve  members — as,  for  instance,  the  committee  on 
Public  Accounts,  which  meets  once  a  week  to  look  into  the 
department  of  the  Auditor-General — which  control  the 
internal  arrangements  of  the  House  ;  and  joint  Committees 
of  the  two  Houses,  which  discuss  matters  in  which  both  are 
interested. 

In  the  Lords  also  Standing  Committees  were  instituted 
in  1889,  but  these  were  to  supplement  and  not  supersede  the 
Whole  House  Committee  stage,  and  after  an  experience  of 
more  than  twenty  years  have  proved  their  insufficient  utility, 
they  were  abolished  on  June  24,  1910. 

In  the  sixteenth  century  committees  generally  met 
outside  the  House,  in  the  Star  Chamber,  in  Lincoln's  Inn, 
or  elsewhere,  but  they  have  not  done  so  for  many  years, 
numerous  committee-rooms  being  nowadays  provided  within 
the  precincts  of  the  House. 

At  the  commencement  of  every  session  the  House  of 
Lords  elects  a  Chairman  of  Committees  from  among  its  own 
members.  His  duty  it  is  to  preside  over  Committees  of  the 
Whole  House,  or  over  Select  Committees  on  whom  the  power 
of  appointing  their  own  Chairman  is  not  expressly  conferred. 
He  is  a  salaried  official  of  Parliament,  and  receives  a  sum 
of  ^2500  a  year  for  his  services.  Similar  duties  are  under- 
taken in  the  House  of  Commons  by  a  Chairman  of  Com- 
mittees and  a  Deputy  Chairman,  at  salaries  of  ;^2500  and 
;i^iooo  respectively. 

The  Crown  usually  appoints  by  commission  one  or  more 
Lords  to  supply  the  place  of  Lord  Chancellor,  should  that 
official  be  unavoidably  absent.  On  emergency  it  may  be 
moved  that  any  lord  present  may  be  appointed  temporarily 


PARLIAMENT  AT  WORK  233 

to  sit  Speaker.  In  the  House  of  Commons  the  Chairman 
of  Ways  and  Means  and  the  Deputy  Chairman  are  similarly 
empowered  to  replace  the  Speaker  when  absent. 

The  problem  of  providing  a  substitute  for  the  Speaker 
was  not  settled  until  1855,  prior  to  which  date  no  steps 
seem  to  have  been  taken  to  fill  the  Chair  in  the  event  of  a 
Speaker's  sudden  illness  or  absence.  It  appears  to  have  been 
considered  inadvisable  to  frame  any  scheme  of  relief  which 
should  facilitate  his  frequent  absence.  It  was,  further,  the 
general  sense  of  the  House  that  no  temporary  president 
could  command  that  implicit  acquiescence  in  the  rulings  of 
the  Chair  which  is  so  necessary  for  the  maintenance  of  order 
in  debate. 

To  the  Chairman  of  Committees,  whom  one  would  regard 
as  a  natural  substitute  for  the  Speaker,  the  House  has  never 
been  willing  to  accord  the  complete  consideration  to  which 
the  Chair  is  entitled  ;  the  fact  that  he  is  liable  at  any  moment 
to  sink  again  into  the  body  of  the  House  robs  this  official  of 
much  of  his  authority.  In  the  reign  of  James  I.  we  find  a 
Chairman  complaining  that  some  member  had  threatened  to 
*'  pull  him  out  of  the  Chair,  that  he  should  put  no  more  tricks 
upon  the  House."  And  in  18 10  another  member,  Fuller  by 
name,  who  had  lost  the  Chairman's  eye  and  his  own  temper, 

called  that  official  a  "d insignificant  puppy,"  and  said 

that  he  didn't  care  a  snap  of  the  fingers  for  him  or  for  the 
House  either.^ 

The  question  of  replacing  the  Speaker  has,  therefore, 
always  been  a  delicate  one,  and  for  many  years  no  attempt 
was  made  to  solve  it.  In  1656,  owing  to  the  illness  of  Sir 
Thomas  Widdrington,  another  member  occupied  the  Chair 
for  a  period  of  a  few  weeks,  and,  during  the  next  few  years, 
several  Speakers  complained  of  ill-health  and  were  temporarily 
relieved.  From  1547,  when  the  Journals  commence,  to  1660, 
the  Speaker  was  only  absent  on  twelve  occasions,  and  during 
the  next  hundred  years  the  records  of  the  House  show  only 
six  cases  of  absence.  The  inconvenience  caused  by  the  rule 
'  Lytton's  "  Life  of  Palmerston,"  vol.  i.  p.  115. 


234  THE   MOTHER   OF   PARLIAMENTS 

which  necessitated  an  adjournment  on  such  occasions — 
curiously  few  in  number  though  they  were — can  readily  be 
imagined.  On  the  death  of  Queen  Anne,  in  17 14,  the  whole 
proceedings  of  Parliament  were  delayed,  and  the  sittings 
postponed  from  day  to  day  owing  to  the  Speaker  being  away 
in  the  country  and  taking  a  long  time  to  travel  to  London. 
The  duty  of  being  ever  in  his  place  at  times  involved  great 
hardships.  Addington  was  obliged  to  take  the  Chair  three 
days  after  the  death  of  his  father,  persevering  by  a  painful 
effort  in  this  stern  adherence  to  the  path  of  duty.^ 

In  the  year  1640,  a  prolonged  session  was  the  cause  of 
many  members  absenting  themselves  from  their  places  in  the 
House  of  Commons.  In  order  to  ensure  a  more  general 
attendance  it  was  then  determined  that  the  Speaker  should 
not  take  the  Chair  unless  there  were  at  least  forty  members 
present  in  the  House.  This  rule  still  holds  good,  and  to-day, 
if  a  quorum  of  forty  is  not  obtainable  before  four  o'clock,  the 
sitting  is  suspended  until  that  hour.  Should  the  same 
difficulty  arise  after  four  o'clock,  the  House  is  adjourned  until 
the  next  sitting  day.-  An  exception  is  made  in  favour  of 
the  hour  between  8.15  and  9.15,  but  if  a  division  be  taken 
during  that  hour  in  the  absence  of  a  quorum,  the  business 
in  debate  must  be  postponed  and  the  next  business  brought 
on.  When,  too,  a  message  from  the  Crown  is  delivered,  the 
House  of  Commons  is  held  to  be  "  made  "  even  though  forty 
members  are  not  present.  On  such  an  occasion  the  business 
of  the  day  can  be  proceeded  with  so  long  as  no  notice  is 
taken  of  the  absence  of  a  quorum. 

It  is  not  the  Speaker's  (or  Chairman's)  duty  to  notice 
the  absence  of  a  quorum,  but  if  his  attention  is  drawn  to  it 
by  a  member  he  must  at  once  rise  in  his  place  and  proceed 
to  count  the  House.     There  is  a  well-known  story  of  a  prolix 

»  Pellew's  "  Life  of  Sidmouth,"  vol.  i.  p.  76. 

-  The  right  of  "  coimtinj,'  out "  the  House  was  not  exercised  until  1729. 
On  May  19,  1876,  the  Commons  failed  to  "make  the  House"  for  the 
first  time  since  April  4,  1865.  See  Irving's  "Annals  of  Our  Time," 
vol.  ii.  p.  197. 


PARLIAMENT  AT  WORK  235 

member  speaking  to  empty  benches  in  the  Commons  who 
referred  sarcastically  to  the  packed  audience  hanging  upon 
his  words,  and  was  interrupted  by  the  Speaker,  who  at  once 
proceeded  to  "  count  out "  the  House,  and  put  an  end  to  the 
sitting  as  well  as  to  the  member's  oration.  The  Speaker's 
inability  to  count  the  House  out  of  his  own  accord  has 
occasionally  given  rise  to  inconvenient  situations.  Lord 
George  Gordon  once  rose  and  requested  permission  to  read 
from  a  book,  which  was  granted.  He  then  proceeded  to 
read  the  Bible  until  the  House  dwindled  from  upwards  of 
four  hundred  members  to  two,  namely,  the  Speaker  and 
Lord  George  himself,  who  had  the  indecency  to  keep  the 
former  in  the  Chair  till  the  candles  were  "fairly  in  the 
socket."  1 

In  the  House  of  Lords  three  peers  form  a  quorum.  If, 
however,  thirty  lords  are  not  present  on  a  division  upon 
any  stage  of  a  Bill,  the  question  is  declared  to  be  not  decided, 
and  the  debate  is  adjourned  until  the  next  sitting.  Lord 
Rosebery,  in  1884,  recalled  an  occasion  when  a  noble  lord, 
Lord  Leitrim,  addressed  a  quorum  of  the  House,  consisting, 
besides  himself,  of  the  Lord  Chancellor  and  the  Minister 
whose  duty  it  was  to  answer  him,  for  four  mortal  hours. 
Another  instance  of  the  same  kind  is  supposed  to  have 
occurred  when  Lord  Lyndhurst  was  on  the  Woolsack  and 
a  noble  lord  spoke  at  considerable  length  to  an  audience  of 
even  smaller  proportions.  After  a  time  the  Chancellor 
became  very  weary  and  could  scarcely  conceal  his  impatience. 
"  This  is  too  bad,"  he  said  at  length,  "  can't  you  stop  ?  "  Still, 
the  peer  prosed  on,  showing  no  sign  of  reaching  his  perora- 
tion. Finally,  Lyndhurst  could  stand  it  no  longer.  "By 
Jove,"  he  cried,  suddenly  inspired  with  a  brilliant  idea,  "I 
will  count  you  out ! "  As  he  and  the  speaker  only  were 
present  in  the  House  at  the  time,  the  Chancellor  was  able 
to  do  this,  and  the  long-winded  nobleman  was  effectually 
silenced. 

In   early  times   the   daily   sittings   of  Parliament   were 
1  Pearson's  "  Political  Dictionary,"  pp.  23-4. 


236  THE   MOTHER  OF   PARLIAMENTS 

preceded  by  Mass  held  in  St.  Stephen's  Chapel.  Later  on  it 
became  the  custom  for  the  lords  to  repair  to  the  Abbey,  and 
the  Commons  to  St.  Margaret's  Church,  for  a  brief  morning 
service.  In  the  Parliaments  of  Queen  Elizabeth  the  Litany 
was  read  daily,  and  a  short  prayer  offered  up  by  the  Speaker 
at  the  meeting  of  the  House.  Prior  to  1 563,  no  regular  daily 
prayers  were  held,  but  on  the  first  five  days  of  any  Parlia- 
ment "  an  archbishop,  bishop  or  famous  clerk,  discrete  and 
eloquent,"  preached  to  the  House.^  This  practice  long  con- 
tinued, and  we  read  of  "  Dr.  Burgcsse  and  Master  Marshal," 
preaching  to  Parliament  on  a  fast  day  in  the  year  1640  for 
"  at  least  seven  hours  betwixt  them  "  - — an  occasion  when 
their  eloquence  seems  to  have  outrun  their  discretion. 

Nineteen  years  later  Richard  Cromwell  appointed  the 
first  regular  chaplain  to  relieve  the  Speaker  and  the  discreet 
and  eloquent  prelates  and  clerks  of  their  duties.  This  official 
enjoyed  no  fixed  emoluments,  but  was  upheld  and  nourished 
by  the  consciousness  of  duty  nobly  done  and  the  hope  of 
subsequent  preferment.  His  counterpart  to-day  is  appointed 
by  the  Speaker  and  paid  by  the  House,  and  his  duties  consist 
in  reading  the  three  brief  prayers  with  which  each  daily 
session  of  the  House  commences.^  In  the  Lords  this  task  is 
undertaken  by  the  bishops  in  rotation. 

When  prayers  are  over  in  the  Lower  House  any  "  private 
business  "  that  has  to  be  taken  is  called  on,  and  Private  Bills 
pass  through  the  initiatory  stages  of  their  career.  The  pro- 
cedure in  this  case  is,  as  a  rule,  purely  formal,  and  lasts  but  a 
short  time. 

The  dispatch  of  private  business  is  immediately  followed 
by  the  oral  presentation  of  petitions  by  those  members  who 
have  informed  the  Speaker  of  their  intention  to  do  so. 

In  these  days  of  open  courts  of  justice,  a  free  Press,  and 

'  "The  Manner  of  Holding  Parliaments  Prior  to  the  Reign  of  Queen 
Elizabeth."    "  Somers  Tract,"  p.  12. 

2  "  Diurnall  Occurrences,"  p.  8. 

^  In  1909,  during  the  temporary  absence  of  the  Chaplain,  the  Speaker 
read  prayers  himself. 


PARLIAMENT  AT  WORK  237 

wholesale  publicity  the  need  for  petitions  is  not  so  great  as 
it  was  in  times  when  the  voice  of  the  people  could  not 
always  obtain  a  hearing.  To-day  the  papers  are  only  too 
ready  to  lend  their  columns  to  the  airing  of  any  grievance, 
real  or  imaginary,  and  politicians  are  not  unwilling  to  make 
party  capital  out  of  any  individual  instances  of  apparent 
injustice  or  oppression  that  may  be  brought  to  their  notice. 

A  hundred  years  ago  all  petitions  were  read  to  the  House 
by  the  members  presenting  them,  and  lengthy  discussions 
often  ensued.  Much  waste  of  time  resulted  from  this  practice, 
and  the  frequent  arrival  at  Westminster  of  large  bodies  of 
petitioners  caused  great  inconvenience,  and  sometimes  led  to 
rioting.  In  1641,  a  huge  crowd  of  women  completely  blocked 
the  entrance  of  the  House.  They  were  led  by  a  certain  Mrs. 
Anne  Stagg,  "  a  gentlewoman  and  brewer's  wife,"  and  their 
object  was  to  present  a  petition  directed  against  the  Popish 
bishops.^  The  Sergeant  of  the  Parliamentary  Guard  appealed 
to  the  House  for  advice  as  to  how  he  should  treat  these 
women,  and  was  told  to  speak  them  fair  and  send  them  away. 
This  he  accordingly  proceeded  to  do,  but  not  without  much 
difficulty. 

Two  years  later  three  thousand  other  "mean  women," 
wearing  white  ribbons  in  their  hats,  arrived  at  Westminster 
with  another  petition.  "  Peace !  Peace  ! "  they  cried,  in  a 
manner  which  was  little  calculated  to  gain  that  which  they 
were  seeking.  "  Give  us  those  traitors  that  are  against  peace, 
that  we  may  tear  them  to  pieces  !  Give  us  that  dog  Pym  !  " 
The  conduct  of  these  viragoes  at  length  became  so  unruly 
that  the  trained  bands  were  sent  for,  and  the  order  was 
eventually  given  to  fire  upon  the  mob.  "  When  the  gentle 
sex  can  so  flagrantly  renounce  their  character,  and  make 
such  formidable  attacks  on  the  men,"  says  a  contemporary 
historian,  "  they  certainly  forfeit  the  polite  treatment  due  to 

'  "  Pari.  Hist."  ii.  1072.    Butler  refers  to  them  in  "  Hudibras  "  : 

"  The  oyster  women  lock'd  their  fish  up, 
And  trudg'd  away  to  cry  '  No  Bishop  ! '" 


238  THE   MOTHER   OF   PARLIAMENTS 

them  as  women  " — and  in  this  case  their  forgetfulness  cost 
them  the  loss  of  several  lives.^ 

To-day,  under  the  provisions  of  the  One  Mile  Act  of 
George  III. — the  result  of  an  attack  made  upon  the  Regent 
on  his  way  from  the  opening  of  Parliament  in  1817 — no 
assembly  of  petitioners  or  public  meeting  is  allowed  within  a 
mile  of  the  Palace  of  Westminster.  Petitions  themselves  are 
treated  in  a  summary  manner  which  permits  of  little  time 
being  wasted.  No  debate  is  permitted  upon  the  subjects 
raised  by  petitions,  and  the  formal  method  of  presentation 
has  given  place  to  a  more  satisfactory  (if  somewhat  per- 
functory) fashion  of  dealing  witli  them. 

Behind  the  Speaker's  Chair  hangs  a  large  bag.  In  this  a 
petition  may  be  placed,  at  any  time  during  a  sitting,  by  the 
member  in  charge  of  it.  Thence  it  is  sent  to  the  Committee 
on  Public  Petitions,  and  presumably  never  heard  of  again. 
Petitions  sometimes  contain  so  many  signatures,  and  are 
consequently  so  bulky,  that  no  earthly  bag  could  possibly 
contain  them.  In  1890,  for  instance,  a  petition  eight  miles  in 
length,  in  favour  of  the  Local  Taxation  Bill,  was  presented  to 
Parliament,  and  in  1908  another,  almost  as  voluminous, 
provided  a  material  protest  against  the  Licensing  Bill. 
Petitions  of  such  proportions  arc  carried  into  the  House  on 
the  shoulders  of  stout  officials,  and,  after  reposing  for  a  brief 
space  upon  the  floor,  are  presently  borne  away  to  be  no  more 
seen  or  remembered. 

When  petitions  have  been  disposed  of,  motions  for  un- 
opposed returns  are  taken,  and  other  formal  business  ;  and 
then  follows  question-time,  perhaps  one  of  the  most  important 

*  Noorthouck's  "A  New  History  of  London,"  p.  180.  Scenes  of  a 
similar  character  occurred  in  the  reign  of  George  III.,  when  the  Gordon 
rioters  stormed  the  Houses  of  Parliament,  shouting  "No  Popery  !"  In 
187 1,  a  mob  of  matchmakers  marched  to  Westminster  to  protest  against 
a  tax  on  matches,  and  were  dispersed  by  the  police.  In  still  more  recent 
times  female  deputations  in  favour  of  Woman's  Suffrage,  accompanied  by 
a  mob  of  inquisitive  sightseers  and  a  section  of  the  criminal  classes,  have 
besieged  the  Palace  of  Westminster  in  a  vain  attempt  to  gain  admittance 
to  the  House  of  Commons. 


PARLIAMENT   AT   WORK  239 

hours   of  the  parliamentary  day,  when   a  hitherto  languid 
House  begins  to  take  some  interest  in  the  proceedings. 

Politicians  would  appear  to  be  among  the  most  inquisitive 
individuals  on  the  face  of  the  globe ;  their  thirst  for  general 
information  is  as  insatiable  as  it  is  amazing.  The  time  spent 
by  various  Government  officials  in  pandering  to  this  craving 
for  knowledge  on  the  part  of  legislators  is  very  considerable : 
it  has  even  been  hinted  that  the  clerks  at  the  Irish  Office  are 
employed  exclusively  upon  the  task  of  answering  conundrums 
set  by  members  of  the  House  of  Commons.  Nothing  is  too 
insignificant,  no  matter  is  too  sacred,  to  be  made  the  subject 
of  a  question  in  the  House.  But,  although  any  member  has 
a  perfect  right  to  apply  for  a  return,  or  to  ask  any  question  he 
pleases,  within  certain  bounds,  a  Minister  of  the  Crown  may 
always  refuse  to  supply  the  return,  or  decline  to  answer  the 
question  ;  nor  need  he  give  any  reason  for  so  doing.  This 
rule  provides  a  loophole  for  a  Minister  who  is  confronted  with 
an  awkward  question  to  which  it  would  need  the  powers  of 
subtlety  and  casuistry  of  a  Gladstone  to  find  a  non-committal 
reply.* 

A  member  of  Lord  Aberdeen's  Ministry  in  1854  was 
attacked  for  not  rendering  a  certain  return  that  had  been 
applied  for.  He  made  no  comment  at  the  time,  but  on  a 
subsequent  occasion  produced  and  laid  on  the  Table  of  the 
House  a  huge  folio  volume  weighing  1388  lbs.  and  containing 
seventy-two  reams  of  foolscap.  The  compilation  of  this 
return,  as  he  informed  the  House,  had  caused  the  dispatch 
of  34,500  circular  letters  and  the  cataloguing  and  tabulating 
of  34,500  replies.  The  result  of  the  figures  mentioned  therein 
had  not  been  arrived  at,  the  Minister  went  on  to  explain,  as 
it  would  have  taken  two  clerks  a  whole  year  to  add  them  up 
Further,  he  added,  the  return,  if  completed,  would  afford  no 
information  beyond  that  which  the  House  already  possessed.^ 

*  When  during  Garibaldi's  visit  to  London,  some  one  suggested  that 
he  should  marry  a  wealthy  widow  with  whom  he  spent  much  of  his  time 
it  was  objected  that  he  already  had  a  wife  living.  "  Never  mind,"  said  a 
wag,  "  we  will  get  Gladstone  to  explain  her  away  !  " 

^  Palgrave's  "  House  of  Commons,"  p.  41. 


240  THE   MOTHER   OF   PARLIAMENTS 

Ever  since  1902,  a  written  instead  of  an  oral  reply  can  be 
rendered  to  all  questions  that  are  not  marked  with  an  asterisk 
by  the  member  who  asks  them.  No  questions  may  be  asked 
after  a  certain  hour,  and  the  answers  to  those  that  have  not 
been  reached  at  that  hour,  as  well  as  to  those  that  are  not 
marked  with  an  asterisk,  are  printed  and  circulated,  thus 
saving  a  great  deal  of  valuable  time. 

Questions  must  be  brief  and  relevant.  No  member  may 
ask  an  excessive  or  unreasonable  number,  nor  may  he  couch 
them  in  lengthy  terms.  They  may  not  be  framed  argumenta- 
tively  nor  contain  personal  charges  against  individuals.  The 
Speaker  is  empowered  to  disallow  any  question  if  he  thinks 
fit,  and  often  interposes  to  check  supplementary  questions 
which  are  not  relevant,  or  which  constitute  an  abuse  of  the 
right  to  interrogate  Ministers  ;  and  the  latter  are  always  at 
liberty  to  refuse  an  answer  on  the  grounds  that  a  reply 
would  be  contrary  to  the  public  interest.  Whenever  our 
relations  with  foreign  Powers  are  in  any  way  strained, 
certain  members  seem  to  take  a  delight  in  asking  questions 
calculated  to  hamper  the  movements  of  the  Foreign  Office, 
or  to  provide  other  nations  with  all  the  secret  information 
they  desire.  And  it  is  not  always  expedient  or  easy  for 
Ministers  to  refuse  to  satisfy  the  thirst  for  knowledge  of  their 
friends  or  opponents,  or  to  try  and  choke  off  the  inquisitive 
or  importunate  with  evasive  answers.  It  was  always  said 
that  "  Darby  Griffith  destroyed  Lord  Palmerston's  first 
Government,"  by  asking  perpetual  questions  which  the  Premier 
answered  with  a  "  cheerful  impertinence  which  hurt  his  parlia- 
mentary power."  ^  And  the  amount  of  patience  and  tact 
displayed  by  modern  Ministers  in  replying  to  frivolous  or 
petty  queries  is  always  a  subject  of  admiration  to  the 
stranger. 

Members  no  doubt  feel  it  their  duty  to  provide  their 
constituencies  with  some  material  evidence  of  their  parlia- 
mentary labours,  and  no  easier  method  can  be  imagined  than 
the  asking  of  questions  on  subjects  in  which  they  possibly 
*  Bagehot's  "  English  Constitution,"  p.  181. 


PARLIAMENT  AT  WORK  241 

take  not  the  slightest  interest.  Some  politicians  openly 
confess  that  their  secretaries  have  orders  to  make  out  a 
regular  weekly  list  of  conundrums  which  they  can  hurl  at  the 
heads  of  unoffending  Ministers,  with  no  other  purpose  than 
that  of  showing  their  constituents  that  they  are  taking  an 
active  interest  in  the  aflfairs  of  the  nation.  The  criticism 
made  by  a  parliamentary  writer  fifty  years  ago  is  equally 
applicable  to-day.  "  It  would  seem  to  be  the  chief  amuse- 
ment of  some  members  diligently  to  read  the  newspapers  in 
the  morning,  and  to  ask  Ministers  of  State  in  the  afternoon 
if  they  have  read  them  too,  and  what  they  think  of  them."  ^ 

The  growth  of  this  yearning  for  information  is  very 
clearly  shown  by  a  glance  at  the  parliamentary  statistics  for 
the  last  hundred  years.  In  1800  not  a  single  question  was 
put  during  the  whole  of  one  session.  In  1846  the  number 
of  questions  asked  with  due  notice  was  sixty-nine.  In  1850 
the  number  had  risen  to  212,  in  1888  to  5000;  in  1901  over 
7000  questions  were  put,  and  to-day  the  number  is  still 
steadily  increasing. 

At  four  o'clock,  or  earlier  if  questions  have  been  disposed 
of,  the  House  proceeds  to  the  consideration  of  its  public 
business  and  the  "  orders  of  the  day,"  and  the  real  business 
of  Parliament  begins. 

*  "  Edinburgh  Review,"  January,  1854,  p.  254. 


CHAPTER  XIV 
PARLIAMENT   AT   WORK    (II) 

THE  modern  system  of  legislating  by  Bill  and  Statute 
dates  from  the  reign  of  Henry  VI.     In  earlier  days 
legislation  was  effected  by  means  of  humble  petitions 
presented  to  the  Crown   by  the  Commons,  and  granted  or 
refused  according  as  the  King  thought  fit. 

Every  Act  of  Parliament  commences  its  existence  in  the 
shape  of  a  Bill.  As  such,  it  may  be  introduced  in  either 
House,  though  the  Commons  have  the  undoubted  monopoly 
of  initiating  financial  measures,  and  Bills  for  the  restitution  of 
honours  and  blood  must  originate  with  the  Lords.  In  the 
Upper  House,  any  peer  may  introduce  a  Bill  without  notice, 
but  in  the  Commons  a  member  must  give  notice  of  his  inten- 
tion either  to  present  a  measure  or  move  for  leave  to  do  so. 
A  Bill  whose  main  object  is  to  impose  a  charge  upon  the 
public  revenue  must  first  be  authorized  by  a  resolution  of  a 
Committee  of  the  Whole  House, 

Bills  may  be  roughly  classified  under  the  two  headings  of 
Public  and  Private,  according  as  they  affect  the  general 
interest  or  are  framed  for  the  benefit  of  individuals  or  groups 
of  individuals,  though  there  also  exist  hybrid  Bills  which 
cannot  be  rightly  placed  in  cither  category.  But  whatever 
their  nature.  Bills  must  pass  through  five  successive  stages. 
In  the  House  of  Lords,  however,  the  Committee  and  Report 
stages  are  occasionally  negatived  in  the  case  of  Money  Bills, 
and  the  Committee  stage  of  Private  Bills  is  conducted  outside 
the  House  either  before  the  Chairman  of  Committees  or,  in 
case  of  opposition,  by  a  Select  Committee  of  the  House. 

242 


PARLIAMENT  AT   WORK  243 

In  ancient  days  the  proceedings  were  not  so  lengthy  as 
they  afterwards  became,  a  Bill  being  sometimes  read  three 
times  and  passed  in  a  single  day  ;  ^  but  nowadays  the  passage 
through  Parliament  of  a  Controversial  Bill  is  a  tedious  affair. 

It  will  be  sufficient  for  the  purposes  of  this  chapter  to  take 
the  example  of  a  Public  Bill  introduced  in  the  House  of 
Commons,  and  follow  it  from  its  embryonic  state  along  the 
course  of  its  career  until,  as  an  Act  of  Parliament,  it  finally 
takes  its  place  in  the  statute-book  of  the  land. 

By  obtaining  the  permission  of  the  House,  a  Member  of 
Parliament  may  bring  in  a  Bill  upon  any  conceivable  subject, 
but  it  is  not  always  possible  for  him  to  find  the  necessary 
opportunity  for  doing  so,  unless  he  happens  to  be  exceptionally 
favoured  by  fortune.^  In  these  days,  when  the  time  at  the 
disposal  of  Parliament  is  altogether  inadequate  to  the  demands 
made  upon  it  by  legislation,  the  chances  of  passing  a  Bill 
without  the  support  of  the  Government  are  for  a  private 
member  extremely  small.  Even  with  official  assistance  this 
is  not  always  an  easy  matter.  It  is  perhaps  as  well  that  the 
passion  for  legislation  latent  in  the  bosom  of  every  politician 
should  to  some  extent  be  curbed.  George  II.  said  to  Lord 
Waldegrave  that  Parliament  passed  nearly  a  hundred  laws 
every  session,  which  seemed  made  for  no  other  purpose  than 
to  afford  people  the  pleasure  of  breaking  them,  and  his 
opinion  that  the  less  legislation  effected  by  Parliament  the 
better  for  the  country  is  still  popular  in  many  quarters.^ 

On  the  third  day  of  every  session  the  question  of  the 
priority  of  members'  claims  to  introduce  Bills  and  motions  is 
decided  by  ballot. 

*  Hakewell's  "  Modus  Tenendi  Parli amentum,"  p.  142. 

2  Bills  of  the  most  fantastic  kind  are  from  time  to  time  introduced, 
though  they  seldom  seethe  light  of  a  Second  Reading.  In  1597  a 
member,  Walgrave  by  name,  brought  in  a  Bill  to  prevent  the  exportation 
of  herrings  to  Leghorn,  "  which  occasioneth  both  a  very  great  scarcity 
of  Herrings  within  the  Realm  and  is  a  great  means  of  spending  much 
Butter  and  Cheese,  to  the  great  inhancing  of  the  prices  thereof  by  reason 
of  the  said  scarcity  of  Herrings." — D'Ewes'  "  Journal,"  p.  562. 

^  Lord  Waldegrave's  "  Memoirs,"  p.  133. 


244  THE   MOTHER   OF   PARLIAMENTS 

A  member  who  is  lucky,  and  has,  if  necessary,  obtained 
the  leave  of  the  House,  can  introduce  his  Bill  briefly  and 
without  debate.  Taking  his  stand  at  the  bar,  he  awaits  the 
summons  of  the  Speaker,  when,  advancing  to  the  Table,  he 
hands  to  the  Clerk  a  "  dummy  "  on  which  the  title  of  the 
Bill  is  written.  This  the  Clerk  proceeds  to  read  to  the  House. 
The  Bill  is  then  considered  to  have  been  read  a  first  time,  and 
ordered  to  be  printed,  and  a  day  is  fixed  for  the  Second 
Reading. 

The  First  Reading  is  looked  upon  as  a  mere  matter  of  form, 
and  rarely  opposed.^  It  is  on  the  Second  Reading,  when  the 
principle  of  the  Bill  is  by  way  of  being  discussed,  that  any 
real  antagonism  begins  to  make  itself  felt.  Opponents  may 
negative  the  motion  that  the  Bill  be  nozu  read  a  second  time — 
in  which  case  the  motion  may  be  repeated  another  day — or 
may  adopt  the  more  usual  and  polite  method  of  moving  that 
the  Bill  be  read  "this  day  six  (or  three)  months  " — the  inten- 
tion being  to  destroy  the  Bill  by  postponing  the  Second 
Reading  until  after  the  prorogation  of  Parliament.  No  Bill 
or  motion  on  which  the  House  has  given  such  a  decision  may 
be  brought  up  again  during  the  same  session,  so  that  a  post- 
ponement of  the  reading  is  merely  a  courteous  way  of 
shelving  it  altogether.^ 

A  Bill  that  has  successfully  weathered  a  Second  Reading 
stands  committed  to  a  Committee  of  the  Whole  House,  unless 
the  House,  on  motion,  resolves  that  it  be  referred  to  some 
other  kind  of  Committee,  viz.,  a  Grand  Committee,  a  Select 
Committee,  or  a  Joint  Committee  of  both  Houses. 

When  the  House  is  to  resolve  itself  into  Committee  a 

'  In  June,  1835,  however,  a  Mr.  Fox  Maule  was  refused  permission  to 
bring  in  a  Bill  "  for  the  better  protection  of  tenants'  crops  in  Scotland 
from  the  ravages  committed  on  them  by  several  kinds  of  game." — Grant's 
"  Recollections,"  p.  38. 

•^  Our  ancestors  were  not  always  so  well-mannered  in  their  methods. 
Once  when  a  Bill  had  been  returned  to  them  from  the  Lords  with  an 
amendment  to  a  money  clause,  they  e.xpressed  their  active  disapproval 
by  literally  kicking  it  along  the  floor  of  the  House,  and  so  out  at  the 
door.     "  Pari.  Hist.,"  vol.  xvii.  p.  515. 


PARLIAMENT  AT  WORK  245 

motion  to  that  effect  is  made  in  the  Lords,  to  which  an 
amendment  may  be  moved  ;  in  the  Commons  the  Speaker 
leaves  the  chair,  and  the  Chairman  of  Committees  at  once 
presides,  sitting  in  the  Clerk's  chair  at  the  Table.  The  Bill 
is  then  discussed  clause  by  clause,  and  any  number  of  amend- 
ments may  be  proposed  to  each  line,  and  any  number  of 
speeches  made  by  any  member  on  each  amendment.  No 
limit  is  set  to  the  number  of  amendments  that  may  be 
moved,  provided  they  are  relevant  and  consistent  with  the 
policy  of  the  Bill.  This  is  therefore  by  far  the  most  lengthy 
stage  of  the  Bill,  and  it  was  in  order  to  accelerate  the  pro- 
gress of  business  that,  in  1883,  Standing  Committees,  con- 
sisting of  from  sixty  to  eighty  members,  were  created  to 
which  Bills  relating  to  Law  and  Trade  were  to  be  referred 
instead  of  to  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  House. 

When  the  Bill  has  passed  through  the  Committee  stage, 
it  is  reported  to  the  House  with  or  without  amendments. 
In  the  former  case,  a  day  is  fixed  for  the  discussion  of  its 
altered  shape,  and  on  this  "  Report "  stage  further  amend- 
ments may  be  made.  At  the  Third  Reading  a  Bill  may  still 
be  rejected,  or  postponed  "  for  six  months,"  or  re-committed, 
but  in  the  Commons  no  material  amendments  may  be  made 
to  it.  This  stage  is  usually  taken  at  once  after  the  Report ; 
but  in  the  Lords  the  two  stages  must  be  on  different  days,  and 
amendments  may  be  made  after  due  notice  on  the  Third 
Reading. 

When  a  Bill  has  safely  passed  all  its  stages  in  the  Lower 
House,  the  Clerk  of  the  Commons  attaches  to  it  a  polite 
message  in  Norman-French — "  soit  bailie  aux  seigneurs  " — 
and  hands  it  to  his  colleague  in  the  Lords.  The  latter  lays 
it  on  the  Table  of  the  Upper  House,  where  it  lies  until  taken 
up  by  some  peer — which  must  be  done  within  twelve  sitting 
days,  if  the  Bill  is  not  to  be  lost  (though  it  may  be  raised 
from  the  dead  by  notice  of  a  motion  to  revive  it  of  the  same 
duration) — when  its  subsequent  treatment,  with  the  few 
differences  noted  above,  is  very  similar  to  that  which  it  has 
already  undergone. 


246  THE   MOTHER   OF   PARLIAMENTS 

Should  the  Lords  pass  a  Bill  as  it  stands,  a  message  to 
that  efifect  is  sent  to  the  Commons.  If,  however,  they  have 
made  alterations,  the  Clerk  of  the  Parliaments  writes,  "A 
ceste  bille  avesque  des  amendemens  les  seignieurs  sont 
assentus "  across  it,  and  returns  it  to  the  Clerk  of  the  other 
House.^  The  Commons  then  proceed  to  consider  the  Lords' 
amendments  on  some  future  day.  If  the  two  Houses  can- 
not agree,  they  must  cither  summon  a  Conference — nowadays 
an  unusual  step  to  take^ — or  a  Select  Committee  of  the 
dissenting  House  sends  a  specially  prepared  message  to 
the  other  Chamber,  explaining  the  reasons  for  its  disagree- 
ment. Numerous  messages  may  pass  in  tliis  way,  for  the 
purpose  of  coming  to  an  agreement ;  but  if  they  fail,  the  Bill 
is  lost  for  the  Session. 

When  a  Bill  has  passed  both  Houses,  nothing  remains  but 
to  give  it  the  Royal  Assent,  which  is  done  by  the  Clerk  of 
the  Parliaments.^ 

'  It  may  be  observed  that  among  the  many  traditionary  differences  of 
opinion  entertained  by  the  two  Houses  is  a  divergence  as  to  the  proper 
spelHng  of  the  word  "  seigneurs." 

-  A  Conference  of  both  Houses  has  not  been  held  since  1836. 

^  The  Clerkship  of  the  Parliaments  is  an  ancient  office,  dating  from 
the  commencement  of  the  fourteenth  century.  It  was  originally  held  by 
an  ecclesiastic,  to  whom  were  assigned,  in  times  when  the  two  Houses  sat 
together,  the  clerical  work  of  I'arliament.  The  Clerk  of  the  Parliaments 
is  appointed  by  the  Crown  under  Letters  Patent,  andean  only  be  removed 
by  the  Crown  on  an  address  from  the  House  of  Lords.  Up  to  the  year 
1855,  the  post  was  a  lucrative  sinecure,  worth  about  ;^7oc>o  a  year,  the 
actual  duties  of  the  office  being  performed  by  the  Clerk  Assistant.  At 
the  beginning  of  the  nineteenth  century,  the  Clerk  of  the  Parliaments 
enjoyed  the  privilege  of  nominating  and  appointing  all  the  clerks  on 
the  House  of  Lords  establishment,  but  in  1S24  the  appointment  of  the  two 
other  Clerks  at  the  Table  was  transferred  to  the  Lord  Chancellor.  He 
still,  however,  appoints  all  the  other  clerks,  regulates  and  controls  the 
duties  and  promotion  of  the  staff,  appoints  the  Librarian  and  his  assistant, 
and  exercises  superintendence  over  the  Library  and  the  Refreshment 
Department  of  the  House.  It  is  his  duty  to  attend  all  the  sittings  of 
the  House,  to  call  on  the  Orders  of  the  Day,  and  to  invite  peers 
to  bring  forward  their  Bills  or  Motions.  He  also  performs  functions 
analogous  to  those  of  the  Speaker  in  the  Commons,  when  he  signs 
Addresses  to  the  sovereign,  other  .Addresses  of  thanks  or  condolence,  the 


IHK    PASSING   OF    THE   RKKORM    BILL   IN   THE    HOUSE   OF    LORDS 

FROM    AN    ENGRAVING    AFTER   THE    PAINTING    BV   SIR   J.  REYNOLDS 


PARLIAMENT   AT  WORK  247 

The  Royal  Assent  is  nowadays  a  mere  formality — a  final 
ceremonial  which  marks  the  last  stage  of  a  Bill's  progress 
ere  it  becomes  law.  It  is  usually  given  by  the  Lords  Com- 
missioners, who  act  as  representatives  of  the  Crown,  though 
there  is  nothing  to  prevent  a  sovereign  from  performing 
this  duty  himself  On  August  2,  183 1,  when  the  Bill 
making  separate  financial  provision  for  Queen  Adelaide 
received  the  Royal  Assent,  both  the  King  and  Queen 
attended  in  Parliament,  and  the  latter  acknowledged  her 
indebtedness  by  bowing  thrice,  presumably  to  King,  Lords 
and  Commons.  As  a  rule,  however,  the  sovereign  is  not 
present  on  these  occasions,  his  place  being  taken  by  a  Com- 
mission. This  consists  of  the  Lord  Chancellor  and  two 
other  Lords,  who  take  their  seats,  prior  to  the  ceremony, 
upon  a  form  placed  between  the  Throne  and  the  Woolsack. 
The  Gentleman  Usher  of  the  Black  Rod  is  then  commanded 
to  summon  the  faithful  Commons,  and,  on  the  arrival  of  the 
latter  at  the  bar  of  the  Lords,  the  titles  of  the  various  Bills 
are  read  aloud  by  the  Clerk  of  the  Crown,  and  the  Royal  Assent 
is  given  by  the  Clerk  of  the  Parliaments  in  old-fashioned 
Norman-French.  In  the  case  of  a  Money  Bill,  brought  up 
by  the  Speaker  of  the  Commons,  and  received  by  the  Clerk 
of  the  Parliaments,  who  bears  it  to  the  Table  bowing,  the 
formula  runs  as  follows : — 

"  Le  Roi  remergie  ses  bons  sujets,  accepte  leur  benevo- 
lence, et  ainsi  le  veult." 

In  the  case  of  a  Public  or  Private  Bill,  the  respective 
phrases,  "  Le  Roi  le  veult "  or  "  Soit  fait  comme  il  est 
dcsirti "  are  substituted,  though,  as  a  matter  of  practice,  the 
latter  phrase  is  only  used  for  Estate,  Naturalisation  and 
Divorce  Bills. 

In  olden  days,  when  the  Crown  was  often  in  the  habit 

minutes  of  the  daily  proceedings,  and  all  the  returns  ordered  by  the 
House.  As  registrar  of  the  Court  of  Final  Appeal,  he  takes  the  in- 
structions of  the  judicial  authorities  upon  all  questions  relating  to  appeals, 
and  keeps  a  record  of  all  judgments,  etc.  Lastly,  and  this  is  perhaps 
not  the  east  important  of  his  duties,  he  gives  the  Royal  Assent  to  Bills. 


248  THE   MOTHER   OF   PARLIAMENTS 

of  refusing  to  consent  to  the  passing  of  particular  Bills,  the 
words  used  by  the  Clerk  of  the  Parliaments  to  signify  the 
royal  veto  were  "  Le  Roi  s'avisera."  In  this  way  Queen 
Elizabeth  quashed  no  less  than  forty-eight  Bills  that  had 
passed  through  Parliament,  and  William  III.  similarly 
declined  to  assent  to  the  Parliamentary  Proceedings  Bill 
of  1693,  much  to  the  annoyance  of  the  Commons.  But 
never  since  Queen  Anne  vetoed  the  Scotch  Militia  Bill,  in 
1707,  has  any  sovereign  refused  the  Royal  Assent. 

All  questions  before  Parliament  are  decided  by  the  voice 
of  the  majority.  And  though,  as  Gladstone  once  said,  decision 
by  majorities  may  be  as  much  an  expedient  as  lighting  by 
gas,  it  is  an  expedient  that  answers  very  well  in  practice, 
and  for  which  an  cflfectivc  substitute  has  yet  to  be  found. 
Majority  may  sometimes  seem  a  clumsy  argument,  but  it 
always  remains  "  the  best  repartee." 

The  procedure  in  either  House  for  ascertaining  the 
general  opinion  upon  any  measure  or  motion  dififers  but 
slightly  in  form,  and  not  at  all  in  principle.  At  the  end  of 
every  debate  the  question  under  discussion  is  laid  before  the 
House  by  its  Speaker  or  Chairman.  This  he  does  by  rising 
in  his  place  and  saying,  "  The  question  is  that  ..."  (here 
follows  the  exact  words  of  the  motion).  "  As  many  as  are  of 
that  opinion  say  '  Aye !  ' ;  as  many  as  are  of  the  contrary 
opinion  say  'No!'"  (In  the  Lords  the  words  "Content" 
and  "Not  Content"  are  substituted  for  "Aye"  and  "No.") 
Members  or  peers  thereupon  express  their  views  in  the 
required  manner,  and  the  Speaker  (or  Chairman),  gathering 
what  is  called  the  "  sense  of  the  House  "  by  the  volume  of 
sound  proceeding  from  either  party,  says,  "  I  think  the 
Ayes  (or  Noes)  " — or,  in  the  Lords  "  the  Contents  "  or  "  Not 
Contents  "— "  have  it !  " 

If  the  judgment  of  the  Chair  be  unchallenged,  the  question 
is  deemed  to  be  resolved  in  the  affirmative  or  negative,  as 
the  case  may  be,  and  nothing  further  remains  to  be  done. 
Should,  however,  either  party  question  the  correctness  of  the 
Chairman's  opinion,  recourse  is  had  to  a  division,  and  certain 


PARLIAMENT  AT  WORK  249 

necessary  formalities  have  to  be  observed  before  the  matter 
is  definitely  settled  one  way  or  the  other. 

When  a  division  is  challenged  in  the  House  of  Commons, 
the  Speaker  (or  Chairman)  orders  the  Sergeant-at-Arms  to 
"  Clear  the  lobby,"  and  the  tellers'  doors  leading  from  the 
lobbies,  as  well  as  the  door  leading  from  the  Central  Hall, 
are  immediately  locked.  After  the  lapse  of  two  minutes, 
during  which  the  loud  division-bells  are  set  ringing  all  over 
the  building  to  summon  breathless  members  to  the  Chamber, 
the  question  is  again  put  from  the  Chair.  If  once  more 
challenged,  the  Speaker  names  two  members  of  either  party 
to  act  as  "  tellers."  Should  no  one  be  found  willing  to 
undertake  this  duty,  a  division  cannot  take  place,  and  the 
Speaker  declares  that  the  "  Noes "  have  it.  If,  however, 
tellers  are  duly  appointed,  they  take  their  place  at  the  exit 
doors  leading  from  the  two  lobbies,  which  are  now  unlocked. 
After  another  interval,  this  time  of  four  minutes'  duration, 
the  doors  leading  from  the  House  to  the  lobbies  are  locked. 
Meanwhile,  all  members  who  wish  to  vote  have  left  the 
Chamber,  and  are  streaming  through  their  respective  lobbies, 
where  their  names  are  recorded  by  clerks,  while  the  tellers 
count  them  as  they  pass  through  the  lobby  doors. 

In  the  old  days  of  St.  Stephen's  Chapel,  the  "  Ayes  "  used 
to  remain  in  the  House,  while  the  "  Noes "  withdrew,  and 
were  counted  on  their  return.  This  practice  led  to  endless 
diflficulties,  many  members  refusing  to  go  out  for  fear  of 
losing  their  seats,  while  others  were  forcibly  detained  by  their 
friends.  In  Elizabeth's  time.  Sir  Walter  Raleigh  admitted 
that  he  often  held  a  fellow- member  by  his  sleeve,  and  others 
were  accused  of  pulling  each  other  back,  as  Cecil  said,  "  like 
a  dog  on  a  string."  ^  Later  on,  it  was  decided  that  members 
who  gave  their  votes  for  the  introduction  of  "any  new 
matter  "  should  alone  withdraw,  while  the  votes  of  those  who 
remained  behind  were  recorded.  This  system  also  had  its 
disadvantages.     In   1834,  for  instance,  when  a  certain  Whig 

^  D'Ewes'  "Journal,"  p.  683,  and  Townshend's  "Proceedings  of 
Parliament,"  p.  322. 


250  THE   MOTHER   OF   PARLIAMENTS 

member,  Colonel  Evans,  fell  asleep  in  one  of  the  side  galleries 
during  a  division,  he  woke  to  find  that  he  had  been  counted 
among  the  Tories,  much  to  his  disgust.  Finally,  two  years 
later,  the  practice  of  clearing  the  House  altogether  for  a 
division  was  first  instituted,  and  continued  in  force  until  the 
establishment  of  the  modern  method  in  1906.^ 

When  all  members  who  desire  to  vote  have  filed  through 
the  lobbies,  and  are  once  more  reassembled  in  the  House,  the 
four  tellers  advance  together  to  the  Table.  The  senior  teller 
of  the  party  having  a  majority,  walks  on  the  right,  bearing  in 
his  hand  a  slip  of  paper,  on  which  are  written  the  numbers 
of  the  division.  By  the  position  of  the  teller  it  is  thus 
possible  to  gauge  the  result  of  a  division  before  it  has  been 
officially  announced,  and  his  advance  to  the  Table  in  the 
place  of  honour  is  usually  the  signal  for  an  outburst  of  cheer- 
ing from  his  own  victorious  party.  He  proceeds  to  report 
the  result  of  the  division  to  the  Clerk  at  the  Table,  who 
writes  the  numbers  on  a  piece  of  paper,  which  he  hands  back 
to  him.  This  the  teller  passes  to  the  Speaker,  who,  in  turn, 
announces  the  numbers  to  the  House.  The  doors  are  then 
unlocked,  and  the  division  is  at  an  end. 

On  one  famous  occasion  the  tellers  failed  to  agree  in  their 
reports  of  the  figures.  This  happened  on  May  10,  1675, 
when  the  House  in  Committee  had  divided  on  a  motion  with 
regard  to  the  English  regiments  serving  in  the  French  army. 
The  tellers'  difference  of  opinion  gave  rise  to  a  scene  of  great 
confusion,  during  which  one  member  spat  in  another's  face, 
and  a  free  fight  would  probably  have  ensued  but  for  the 
sudden  arrival  of  the  Speaker. 

The  amount  of  time  spent  in  dividing  has  always  been 
a  source  of  annoyance  to  earnest  politicians,  more  especially 

'  In  18 lo,  another  system  was  temporarily  introduced,  the  members 
ranging  themselves  on  either  side  of  the  House  and  being  counted  by 
the  tellers.  Croker,  when  Ministerial  teller,  once  accidentally  missed 
out  a  whole  bench  full  of  Government  supporters,  thereby  reducing  the 
Ministerial  majority  by  about  forty.  The  Opposition  teller  watched  the 
error  with  a  smile,  but  did  not  feel  called  upon  to  correct  it.  See  "The 
Observer,"  March  n,  1810. 


PARLIAMENT  AT  WORK  251 

when  divisions  are  made  use  of  as  a  recognised  form  of 
obstruction,  and  the  progress  of  parliamentary  business 
thereby  much  impeded.  In  1902,  to  name  a  recent  example, 
the  opponents  of  the  Deceased  Wife's  Sister  Bill,  which  had 
already  passed  a  Second  Reading,  deliberately  walked  so 
slowly  through  the  lobbies  during  four  divisions  that  there 
was  no  time  left  to  move  that  it  should  be  sent  to  a  Grand 
Committee.  Members  naturally  grudge  the  precious  hours 
wasted  in  trudging  through  the  lobbies  ;  but  it  seems  im- 
possible to  invent  any  scheme  that  shall  further  expedite 
matters,  the  present  system  being  apparently  as  perfect  as 
the  mind  of  man  can  devise.* 

When  a  division  is  called  in  the  House  of  Lords,  the 
procedure  is  very  similar  in  character  to  that  of  the  Commons. 
The  Chancellor  (or  Lord  on  the  Woolsack)  orders  strangers 
to  withdraw  by  saying,  "  Clear  the  bar ! "  and  the  Clerk  of 
the  Parliaments  thereupon  turns  a  two-minute  sand-glass. 

When  the  sand  has  run  out  of  the  glass,  the  doors  are 
locked,  and  the  question  is  once  more  put  to  the  House. 
If  the  Lord  Chancellor's  decision  is  challenged  he  at  once 
says,  "  the  '  Contents '  will  go  to  the  right  by  the  Throne, 
and  the  '  Not  Contents  '  to  the  left  by  the  bar."  Each  party 
then  passes  through  its  own  lobby,  the  "  Contents  "  re-entering 
the  House  on  the  right  of  the  bar,  the  "  Not  Contents  " 
through  the  door  on  the  left  of  the  Throne,  their  votes  being 
duly  recorded  by  clerks  in  the  lobbies.  The  subsequent 
procedure  resembles  that  in  vogue  in  the  Lower  House. 

Until  1857,  when  the  present  system  was  adopted,  the 
"  Contents "  remained  within  the  bar,  while  the  "  Not  Con- 
tents" went  below  the  bar.  Peers,  who  through  infirmity, 
or  other  causes,  are  disabled  from  leaving  the  House,  may  by 
its  permission  be  "  told  "  in  their  seats,  and  those  who  do  not 
wish  to  vote  at  all  are  allowed  to  go  within  the  railings  on 
the  steps  of  the  Throne. 

*  In  the  Session  of  188 1  the  number  of  divisions  was  about  400  ;  in 
1908,  including  the  autumn  Session,  the  number  was  463,  and  in  1909  the 
House  of  Commons  divided  918  times. 


252  THE   MOTHER   OF   PARLIAMENTS 

In  old  days  the  practice  of  voting  by  proxy  was  habitual 
in  the  House  of  Lords.  During  the  reign  of  Edward  L, 
nobles  who  were  unable  to  attend  in  person  invariably  sent 
messengers  to  act  for  them.  Peers  were  permitted  to  appoint 
any  individuals  to  represent  them,  either  permanently  or  on 
special  occasions,  and,  up  to  the  fifteenth  century,  these 
proxies  did  not  even  have  to  be  peers  themselves.  In  the 
time  of  Henry  VIII.  the  custom  of  allowing  peers  to  repre- 
sent one  another  was  first  instituted,  and  in  Charles  I.'s  day 
we  find  the  Duke  of  Buckingham  holding  no  less  than 
fourteen  proxies.  Such  a  custom  naturally  led  to  many 
abuses,  and  an  order  was  eventually  passed  forbidding  any 
peer  to  hold  more  than  two  proxies.  Finally,  in  1868,  the 
House  of  Lords  realised  that  the  practice  was  reprehensible, 
and  passed  a  Standing  Order  whereby  the  system  of  calling 
for  proxies  on  a  division  was  discontinued. 

To-day,  peers  are  in  some  ways  even  more  particular  than 
their  colleagues  in  the  Commons,  and  do  not  allow  any  one 
of  their  number  to  take  part  in  a  division  unless  he  has  him- 
self been  in  the  House  when  the  question  was  put.  In  other 
respects  they  enjoy  a  wider  latitude.  If  a  lord  occasionally 
strays  into  the  wrong  lobby,  he  may  refuse  to  be  counted  by 
the  tellers,  and  his  vote  may  afterwards  be  recorded  as  he 
desires.  A  member  of  the  House  of  Commons  who  commits 
a  like  indiscretion  is  required  to  bear  the  consequences,  and 
can  neither  alter  nor  rescind  his  vote. 

In  the  event  of  an  equal  number  of  votes  being  recorded 
on  either  side  in  a  division  the  procedure  differs  in  the  two 
Houses.  In  the  Lords  the  question  is  invariably  resolved  in 
the  negative,  in  accordance  with  the  ancient  rule  of  the  Law  : 
"semper  praisumitur  pro  negante."  In  the  Commons  the 
Speaker  has  to  decide  it  by  a  casting  vote,  which  he  generally 
gives  in  such  a  manner  as  to  leave  the  question  open  for 
another  division.  This,  however,  is  not  always  an  easy  task  ; 
indeed,  it  is  often  a  most  invidious  and  unpleasant  one.  In 
April,  1805,  Speaker  Abbot  was  compelled  to  give  a  casting- 
vote  on  the  resolution  leading  to  the  impeachment  of  Lord 


PARLIAMENT  AT  WORK  253 

Melville.  After  ten  minutes'  distressing  hesitation,  while 
the  House  remained  in  a  state  of  agonized  suspense,  Abbot 
reluctantly  gave  his  vote  against  Lord  Melville,  and  thus 
secured  the  defeat  of  Pitt.^ 

This  is  by  no  means  the  only  instance  of  a  momentous 
question  such  as  the  life  of  a  Government  being  decided  by  a 
single  vote.  The  Second  Reading  of  the  Reform  Bill  in 
1 83 1  was  carried  by  a  majority  of  one;  the  House  on  that 
occasion  presenting  a  sight  which,  as  Macaulay  said,  was  to 
be  seen  only  once  and  never  to  be  forgotten.  "  It  was  like 
seeing  Caesar  stabbed  in  the  Senate  House,  or  seeing  Oliver 
taking  the  mace  from  the  Table."  When  the  tellers  announced 
the  majority  the  victorious  party  shouted  with  joy,  while 
some  of  them  actually  shed  tears.  "  The  jaw  of  Peel  fell  ; 
and  the  face  of  Twiss  was  as  the  face  of  a  damned  soul ;  and 
Herries  looked  like  Judas  taking  his  necktie  off  for  the  last 
operation."  In  1854  Lord  Russell  was  defeated  and  Sir 
Robert  Peel  returned  to  victory  on  the  crest  of  an  equally 
diminutive  wave  ;  and  a  century  earlier  Walpole's  adminis- 
tration was  overthrown  by  a  small  majority  of  three. 

A  minority  of  one  is  more  unusual,  but  not  altogether 
unknown.  At  the  end  of  the  eighteenth  century,  when  the 
Duke  of  Somerset  divided  the  House  of  Lords  on  a  question 
of  war  with  France,  he  walked  alone  into  the  Opposition 
division  lobby.  The  same  fate  befell  Dr.  Kenealy  in  1875, 
when  his  motion  on  behalf  of  the  Tichborne  Claimant  was 
defeated  by  433  votes  to  i.  On  July  16,  1909,  when  a 
division  was  taken  on  an  amendment  to  reject  a  Bill  prohibi- 
ting foreign  trawlers  from  landing  their  catches  at  British 
ports,  the  Noes  numbered  158  while  there  was  but  a  solitary 
Aye.  And  on  July  18,  1910,  on  a  motion  for  the  adjourn- 
ment of  the  House,  there  was  but  a  single  No. 

No  secrecy  is  maintained  as  to  the  voting  of  peers  or 
members  in  divisions.     In  the  old  Journals  of  the  Lords  the 

>  Only  fifteen  ties  are  known  in  the  history  of  Parliament.  On  April  3, 
1905,  Speaker  Gully  gave  a  casting  vote  on  the  Embankment  Tramways 
Bill,  as  did  Speaker  Lowther,  on  July  22,  1910,  on  the  Regency  Bill. 


254  THE   MOTHER   OV   PARLIAMENTS 

division  lists  used  always  to  be  entered,  but  in  1641  this 
practice  was  abandoned,  and  the  minority  could  only  record 
an  adverse  vote  by  a  formal  protest  of  dissent.'  Division 
lists  were  not  re<^ularly  prinlctl  in  the  Commons  until  1830, 
and  the  Lords  followed  suit  about  twenty  years  later. 

Divisions  provide  Icj^islators  with  plenty  ()f  exercise,  com- 
bined occasionally  with  acute  mental  anxiety.  The  latter 
they  share  with  those  hard  worked  and  hardworking  inili- 
viduals,  the  "  Whips  "  or  "  Whippers-in,"  whose  duties  are  at 
all  times  heavy  and  become  especially  onerous  with  the 
approach  of  a  division. 

These  Whips,  who  are  four  in  number — two  representing 
the  Government,  two  the  Opposition — have  rooms  providetl 
for  them  in  the  Lobby,  and  hold  positions  of  the  utmost 
responsibility  and  influence.  In  the  House  of  Commons  the 
office  of  i)rincipal  Government  Whip  is  one  of  immense 
importance  and  requires,  as  Disraeli  said,  "consunnnate 
knowled^^e  of  human  nature,  the  most  amiable  flexibility,  and 
complete  self-control."''  As  Patronage  Secretary  to  the 
Treasury,  with  a  salary  of  ;^2000  a  year,  he  is  the  descendant 
of  that  ofllcial,  sometimes  known  as  the  "  Secretary  for 
Political  Jobs,"  who  in  former  times  bought  members,  their 
votes  and  constituencies,  anil  disposed  of  the  Government 
secret  service  money  to  obtain  (and  retain)  a  majority  for  the 
party  in  power. 

The  Chief  Whip  is  generally  assisted  by  two  of  the  Junior 
Lords  of  the  Treasury,  and,  in  conjunction  with  the  Opposition 
Whips,  arranges  all  the  details  of  the  sessional  cam[)aign. 
On  the  occasion  of  important  debates  the  Whips  conspire  to 
choke  off  any  garrulous  nonentities  who  may  wish  to  make 
their  voices  heard,  and  practically  arrange  a  list  of  the 
influential  speakers  on  both  sides  in  the  order  in  which  they 
arc  to  address  the  House.  At  such  a  time  the  Speaker's  eye 
may  almost  be  said  to  be  a  party  to  the  conspiracy,  though 

'  This  riyht  of  protest  recorded  in  tlic  Journals  of  the  House  is  still 
ocrasion.nlly  cxcrrised. 

-  "  Life  of  Lord  George  Bentinck,"  p.  314. 


rART.IAMl<:NT   AT   WORK  255 

never  yicldinpf  its  discretion  to  he  cAu\\hi  l)y  members  whose 
ii.imcs  arc  not  upon  the  Whii)s'  list. 

Tact,  ^jooil  l(Mni)or  and  unceasintj  vigilance  are  virtiies 
necessary  to  Whii)s.  They  must  combine  the  discretion 
of  the  (h'plomatist  witli  the  acumen  of  the  sleuth-hound. 
It  is  their  business  to  smooth  th(^  ru(Hed  feathers  of 
any  members  who  consider  themselves  ajj^rieved,  to  listen 
patiently  to  the;  bores,  to  sutler  tlu?  fools  jjladly.  They 
are  cxinxtecl  to  asccMtain  the  "  scmisc  "  of  the  Ilotise 
upon  all  itnportant  (juestions,  either  by  instinct,  by  worminjr 
their  way  into  the;  confidence  of  members,  or  by  secret 
detective  work  in  the  Smokini^  Room.  They  must  keei) 
their  leader  informed  of  their  discoveries,  and  thus  ^juard  the 
party  against  any  sudden  unexi)ecled  attack.  If  necessary 
they  <ict  as  emissaries  or  ambassailors  between  tlie  party 
heads,  arraniMnii;  an  oerasional  compromise  or  dc>cidin|';  what 
particular  (juestions  shall  be  discusscil  in  an  uncontroversial 
spirit. 

The  Whips  have  been  called  tlu;  aiitocrats  r)f  th(*  House 
of  Commons,  but  thc)u^(h  tlu:y  rule  individual  members  with 
an  iron  haml,  it  must  ever  be  their  desire  to  keep  their  party 
contented  and  hapi)y  and  harmonious.  When  a  private 
member  is  very  anxious  to  escape  from  the  House  for  a 
holiday  it  is  to  the  Wln'i)  he  a[)i)lies  for  permission.  II 
possible  he  "pairs  "  with  some  member  on  the  other  side  who 
is  ecpially  desirouslof  escapintj.  At  the  door  of  the  Mouse;  lies 
a  book  in  which  mt;uibers  "  [jairiu}',"  with  one;  another  inscribe 
their  names,  and  it  is  one  of  the  Whii)s'  duties  to  arran^jc 
these  "pairs,"  and,  above  all,  to  .see  that  no  member  i;ets 
away  unpaired. 

At  a  time  when  a  tickli.sh  division  is  expected,  when  the 
majority  on  either  side  is  uncertain,  the  Whijjs  are  stimulated 
to  herculean  labours.  Threat.s,  entreaties,  cajoleries,  all  must 
be  emphjyed  to  brinjj  members  up  to  the  scratch.  The 
wavercrs  must  be  secured,  the  doubtfid  reassured.  Nothinjj 
can  be  left  undejne  to  c;nsur(;  that  every  available  member 
shall  be  in  his  [jj.ice  when  the  decisive  nujment  arrives.     The 


256  THE   MOTHER   OF   PARLIAMENTS 

byways  and  hedges  are  scoured  for  absentees,  who  are 
besought  to  return  at  once  to  Westminster  to  record  their 
votes  and  perhaps  save  their  party  from  defeat. 

When  Pulteney,  whom  Macaulay  considered  the  greatest 
leader  of  the  Opposition  that  the  House  of  Commons  had 
ever  seen,  gathered  his  forces  in  1742  to  overthrow  Walpole, 
the  Opposition  left  no  stone  unturned  to  ensure  a  majority. 
They  collected  every  man  of  the  party,  no  matter  what 
excuses  he  put  forward.  One  was  brought  into  the  House  in 
a  dying  condition,  but  contrived  to  defer  his  impending 
dissolution  until  he  had  recorded  his  valuable  vote.  Both 
sides  produced  a  number  of  incurables,  and  the  House 
looked  (as  Ewald  says)  more  like  the  Pool  of  Bethesda  than 
a  legislative  assembly.  The  Prince  of  Wales  was  an 
interested  spectator  of  the  scene.  "  I  see,"  he  remarked  to 
General  Churchill,  "  you  bring  in  the  lame,  the  halt  and  the 
blind  !  "  "Yes,"  replied  the  General,  "the  lame  on  our  side, 
the  blind  on  yours  !  "  ^ 

A  similar  scene  took  place  in  1866  when  the  Russell- 
Gladstone  Cabinet  was  defeated  over  the  Reform  Bill.  The 
Whips  had  achieved  wonders  in  collecting  their  flocks 
together  ;  they  had  haled  to  Westminster  the  sick,  the  senile, 
the  decrepit,  the  doting  and  the  moribund.  The  grave  alone 
seems  to  have  been  sacred  from  their  ravages.  Some  of  the 
members,  as  we  read  in  a  contemporary  account,  "  had  been 
wooed  from  the  prostration  of  their  couches  ;  one  had  been 
taken  from  the  delights  of  his  marriage-trip  ;  and  several 
from  the  bedsides  of  relatives  in  extremity."  ^ 

To  be  able  to  accomplish  such  feats  the  Whips  must  be 
well  acquainted  with  the  habits  and  haunts  of  the  individuals 
beneath  their  charge,  so  that  at  any  moment  of  the  day  or 
night  they  may  send  a  telegram  or  a  message  to  an  absentee 
whose  presence  is  urgently  required.  Pepys  in  his  Diary 
(December  8,  1666)  describes  how  the  King  gave  an  order 
"  to  my  Lord   Chamberlain  to  send  to  the   playhouses  and 

1  Ewald's  "  Biography  of  Walpole,"  p.  419. 

2  "  Chambers'  Journal,"  December  26,  1886,  p.  Srg. 


PARLIAMENT  AT   WORK  257 

brothels,  to  bid  all  the  Parliament-men  that  were  there  to  go 
to  the  Parliament  presently,"  to  vote  against  some  Bill  of 
which  he  disapproved.  The  modern  Whip  in  like  manner 
must  be  ready  at  any  moment  to  despatch  an  urgent 
summons  to  the  Opera,  to  the  Clubs,  to  houses  where  parties 
are  being  given,  recalling  members  to  their  parliamentary 
duties.  And  in  doing  so  he  must  exercise  the  greatest 
possible  tact.  The  wife  of  a  much  respected  member  of 
Parliament  was  sleeping  peacefully  in  her  bed  one  night 
when  a  frantic  message  arrived  from  the  party  Whip 
imploring  her  husband  to  come  at  once  to  Westminster. 
She  remembered  that  her  spouse  had  informed  her  that  he 
would  probably  be  kept  at  the  House  until  late  and  had 
begged  her  not  to  sit  up.  Inspired  with  horrible  suspicions 
of  conjugal  perfidy,  the  good  lady  rose  in  haste  and  hurried 
down  to  the  House  of  Commons  to  confirm  them.  As  a 
matter  of  fact  her  husband  had  never  left  the  precincts  of 
Parliament,  and  the  Whip's  message  had  been  despatched  in 
error.  The  member  was  therefore  much  surprised  at  the 
sudden  appearance  of  his  wife  upon  the  scene.  His  attach- 
ment to  home  and  duty  had  been  equally  unimpaired,  and  he 
received  her  explanation  somewhat  coldly. 

A  notice,  more  or  less  heavily  underlined,  is  sent  to  each 
member  of  Parliament  every  morning,  apprising  him  of  the 
business  of  the  day's  sitting  and  of  the  necessity  for  his 
presence  in  the  House.  These  "  whips,"  as  they  are  called, 
were  in  vogue  as  long  ago  as  the  year  1621,  when,  Porritt 
tells  us,  notices  underlined  six  times  were  sent  to  the  King's 
friends.^  The  urgency  of  the  summons  can  be  gauged  by  the 
number  of  underlines,  and  a  "  whip  "  that  is  underlined  three 
times  can  only  be  ignored  at  the  peril  of  the  member  who 
receives  it.^ 

Though  the  Whips  seldom  address  the  House  themselves, 
they    must    on    all    occasions    be    ready   to    provide   other 

'  Porritt's  "  Unreformed  House  of  Commons,"  vol.  i.  p.  509. 
2  Until  a  few  years  ago  all  "whips"  were  underlined  twice  and  in 
urgent  cases  five  times, 
s 


258  THE   MOTHER   OF   PARLIAMENTS 

speakers  who  shall  feed  the  dying  embers  of  debate  with 
fresh  fuel.  At  all  hazards  the  ball  must  be  kept  rolling. 
Sometimes  a  debate  shows  signs  of  languishing  in  an  un- 
expected fashion,  and  the  Whip  is  horrified  to  find  that  his 
usual  majority  has  dwindled  away  to  nothing.  When  this 
occurs  he  must  at  once  find  members  who  are  willing  to  talk 
against  time  while  he  and  his  colleagues  hasten  round  and 
beat  up  a  majority.  On  one  famous  occasion  within  recent 
memory,  while  most  of  the  supporters  of  the  Conservative 
Government  were  disporting  themselves  at  Ascot  on  the 
Cup  day,  the  Opposition  prepared  to  spring  an  unexpected 
division  upon  the  House.  The  situation  was  only  saved 
by  Mr.  Chaplin,  who  spoke  for  several  hours,  in  spite  of  the 
howls  of  his  opponents,  while  a  special  train  was  bringing 
absentees  from  the  racecourse  to  the  House  of  Commons. 

It  is,  then,  the  Whip's  duty,  not  only  to  "  make  "  a  House 
and  to  "  keep  "  a  House,  but  also,  like  Sidmouth's  sycophantic 
relatives,  to  "cheer  the  Minister."  To  quote  the  lines  of 
Canning — 

"  When  the  faltering  periods  lag, 

Or  the  House  receives  them  drily, 
Cheer,  oh,  cheer  him,  Brother  Bragge  ; 
Cheer,  oh,  cheer  him,  Brother  Riley  ! 

"  Brother  Bragge  and  Brother  Riley, 

Cheer  him  !  when  he  speaks  so  vilely. 
Cheer  him  !  when  his  audience  flag. 
Brother  Riley,  Brother  Bragge !  "  ' 


'  *'  Ode  to  the  Doctor."  (Bragge  Bathurst,  Lord  Sidmouth's  brother- 
in-law,  and  Riley,  his  brother,  were  place-hunters  who  felt  bound  to 
applaud  their  patron.) 


CHAPTER   XV 
STRANGERS   IN    PARLIAMENT 

THEORETICALLY  speaking,  Parliament  is  averse  to 
the  presence  of  strangers ;   in  practice  both  Houses 
are  as  hospitably  inclined  as  is  compatible  with  the 
limited  space  at  their  disposal. 

One  of  the  chief  duties  of  the  Sergeant  at-Arms  originally 
consisted  in  "  taking  into  custody  such  strangers  who  presume 
to  come  into  the  House  of  Commons."^  This  duty  has 
however,  long  been  neglected,  and  a  modern  Sergeant-at-Arms 
who  sought  to  accomplish  such  a  task  would  find  his  hands 
full. 

In  the  early  days  of  Parliament,  the  most  drastic  measures 
were  taken  to  maintain  the  secrecy  of  debate,  and  the 
intrusion  of  a  stranger  was  looked  upon  as  a  cause  for  grave 
alarm.  In  1584,  a  man  named  Robinson  succeeded  in 
obtaining  admission  to  the  Commons,  and  sat  in  the  House 
unnoticed  for  two  hours.  When  at  last  his  presence  was 
discovered,  Mr.  Robinson  was  roughly  handled  by  the 
Sergeant-at-Arms,  and,  before  he  had  time  to  utter  his  own 
name,  was  "  stript  to  the  shirt "  and  searched.^  Nothing  of 
an  incriminating  nature  being  found  beneath  the  intruder's 
clothing,  he  was  brought  to  the  bar,  sworn  to  secrecy  and 
compelled  to  take  the  Oath  of  Supremacy  before  being  finally 
released  with  a  severe  reprimand.  A  hundred  years  later 
two  inoffensive  but  ignorant  strangers  walked  into  the  House 

>  House  of  Commons  "Journals,"  vol.  x.  291. 
*  D'Ewes' "Journal,"  p.'334. 
259 


26o  THE   MOTHER  OF   PARLIAMENTS 

and  sat  quietly  down  beside  the  Sergeant-at-Arms.  Here 
they  remained  for  some  time,  much  impressed  by  the 
hospitality  of  the  Commons,  until  a  division  happened  to  be 
called.  Their  presence  was  not  observed  until  the  lobby 
doors  had  been  finally  locked,  and  they  had  to  be  hurried 
out  of  the  way  by  a  side  staircase  to  the  Distinguished 
Strangers'  Gallery.  Here  they  remained  until  the  division 
was  over,  and  were  subsequently  dismissed  with  a  caution. 
In  177 1,  a  stranger  who  had  accidentally  mingled  with 
the  members  in  the  lobbies  was  actually  counted  in  a 
division. 

As  time  went  on  Parliament  grew  more  and  more 
tolerant  of  the  presence  of  strangers,  and,  though  the  order 
forbidding  their  admission  remained  upon  the  order  book  of 
the  House  of  Commons,  it  soon  came  to  be  universally 
disregarded. 

In  the  old  House  members  would  sometimes  be  accom- 
panied by  their  sons,  quite  little  boys,  whom  they  would 
carry  to  their  seats  beside  them,  and  strangers  could  always 
obtain  a  seat  in  the  gallery  by  means  of  a  written  order  given 
them  by  a  member,  or  by  the  simple  method  of  slipping  half- 
a-crown  into  the  hand  of  the  attendant  at  the  door.  When 
C.  P.  Moritz,  the  German  traveller,  visited  the  House  in  1782, 
he  sought  admission  to  the  gallery,  but,  being  unprovided 
with  a  pass,  was  turned  away.  As  he  was  sadly  withdrawing 
he  heard  the  attendant  murmur  something  of  an  apparently 
irrelevant  nature  concerning  a  bottle  of  rum,  but  not  until  he 
reached  home  did  it  occur  to  him  that  the  remark  might 
possibly  have  some  bearing  upon  the  situation.  The  next 
day,  having  been  enlightened  as  to  the  general  custom  in 
vogue  among  those  who  wished  to  be  present  during  a  debate, 
he  returned  to  the  gallery.  He  had  taken  the  wise  precaution 
of  providing  himself  with  a  small  sum  of  money.  This  he  had 
no  difficulty  in  pressing  upon  the  door-keeper,  who  at  once 
showed  him  into  a  front  seat.^  No  doubt  Edmund  Burke, 
who   in    his   youth    spent   so    much   time    listening    to   the 

'  Pinkertcn's  "  Voyages,"  vol.  ii.  p.  506. 


STRANGERS   IN   PARLIAMENT  261 

debates  and  gaining  that  Parliamentary  experience  which  was 
afterwards  destined  to  stand  him  in  such  good  stead,  unlocked 
the  gallery  door  with  the  same  golden  key. 

Up  to  the  year  1833  the  doorkeepers  and  messengers  of 
the  House  of  Commons  were  paid  principally  in  fees  and 
gratuities.  Members  were  called  upon  to  contribute  about 
£g  per  session  towards  a  fund  raised  on  their  behalf,  and 
they  received  a  small  nominal  salary  of  less  than  £i'^.  The 
doorkeepers  earned  further  payment  by  delivering  the  Orders 
and  Acts  of  the  House  to  members,  as  well  as  various  fees 
from  parliamentary  agents,  and  were  likewise  entitled  to  a 
quarter  of  the  strangers'  fees.  In  1832  the  two  chief  door- 
keepers were  making  between  ;^8oo  and  ;^900  a  year,  and 
the  chief  messenger  nearly  £600.  The  man  whose  duty  it 
was  to  look  after  the  room  above  the  ventilator  to  which 
ladies  were  admitted  was  not  so  successful  as  his  colleagues, 
and  complained  that  he  only  received  about  ;^I0  a  year  in 
tips  from  the  more  economical  sex.^ 

Pearson,  for  over  thirty  years  doorkeeper  in  the  old 
House  of  Commons,  was  one  of  the  most  familiar  figures  in 
and  about  St.  Stephen's  Chapel  during  the  latter  part  of  the 
eighteenth  century.     In  his  box  near  the  gallery  he  sat — 

"  Like  a  pagod  in  his  niche  ; 
The  Gom-gom  Pearson,  whose  sonorous  lungs, 
With  '  Silence !    Room  there  ! '  drown  an  hundred  tongues." 

Long  service  had  given  him  a  position  of  authority  of 
which  he  took  every  advantage.  If  a  member  were 
negligent  in  the  matter  of  paying  the  door-keeper  his 
fee,  or  treated  that  official  in  a  manner  which  he  con- 
sidered derogatory  to  his  dignity,  Pearson  revenged  him- 
self by  sending  the  offender  to  the  House  of  Lords  or  the 
Court  of  Requests  in  search  of  imaginary  friends.     By  such 

1  "Report  of  the  Select  Committee  on  the  Establishment  of  the 
House  of  Commons"  (1833),  pp.  84-5.  (To-day  the  messengers  and 
doorkeepers,  of  whom  there  are  about  a  score,  earn  regular  salaries 
ranging  from  £120  to  ;^300.  Except  for  a  share  in  the  fund  for 
messengers  and  police  to  which  members  may  or  may  not  contribute,  no 
gratuities  of  any  description  are  allowed  to  them.) 


262  THE   MOTHER   OF   PARLIAMENTS 

means  he  generally  reduced  the  irritated  member  to  sub- 
mission, and  could  extract  a  handsome  present  and  a 
promise  of  future  politeness.  Pearson  had  his  own  im- 
portance so  much  at  heart,  as  we  read  in  his  biography,  that 
he  spurned  a  member's  money  unless  he  had  previously 
humbled  the  man.  Long  experience  had  enabled  him  to  time 
the  length  of  a  debate  or  even  of  an  individual  speech  with 
extraordinary  accuracy.  Members  wishing  to  be  informed 
as  to  the  probable  hour  of  adjournment  would  ask  him  at 
what  time  the  Speaker  had  ordered  his  carriage.  "  The 
Speaker  has  ordered  his  coach  at  eight,"  Pearson  would 
reply,  "  but  I'll  be  d d  if  you  get  away  before  twelve  !  "  ^ 

Pearson's  treatment  of  strangers  was  no  less  autocratic. 
He  could  not  always  be  corrupted  into  finding  room  for 
them  in  the  galleries  unless  he  happened  to  take  a  fancy 
to  the  appearance  of  the  visitors.  "  If  a  face  or  a  manner  did 
not  please  him,"  says  his  biographer,  "  gold  could  not  bribe 
him  into  civility,  much  less  to  the  favour  of  admission. 
One  stranger  might  be  modest  and  ingratiating  ;  Pearson, 
like  Thurlow,  would  only  give  him  a  silent  contemptuous 
stare  ;  another  would  be  rude  ;  Pearson  would  laugh  at  his 
rudeness,  tell  him  the  orator  of  the  moment,  and,  perhaps, 
shove  him  in,  although  he  had  before  refused  dozens  who 
were  known  to  him."  "^ 

In  the  first  year  of  Ouccn  Victoria's  reign  a  suggestion 
was  made  that  the  public  should  be  admitted  without  orders 
of  any  kind.  This  idea  was  successfully  opposed  by  Lord 
John  Russell,  who  expressed  a  fear  that  in  such  circumstances 
the  galleries  would  be  filled  with  pickpockets  and  other 
objectionable  persons. 

'  The  familiar  way  in  which  Pearson  addressed  members  seems  to 
have  been  generally  condoned  on  account  of  his  long  service.  Once 
when  General  Grant,  who  had  boasted  that  he  would  march  victoriously 
through  America  with  three  thousand  men,  asked  the  door-keeper  how 
long  a  certain  member  would  speak,  Pearson  replied,  "  As  long,  General, 
if  he  was  allowed,  as  you  would  be  in  marching  through  and  conquering 
America  !  "    Pearson's  "  Political  Dictionary,"  p.  lo. 

''  Ibid.,  p.  6. 


STRANGERS   IN   PARLIAMENT  263 

Prior  to  1867  strangers  sometimes  hired  substitutes  to 
keep  places  for  them  in  the  crowd  which  thronged  St. 
Stephen's  Hall  on  the  morning  of  a  big  debate.  These 
representatives  would  arrive  as  early  as  2.30  a.m.,  and,  like 
the  messenger  boys  in  the  queue  outside  a  modern  theatre, 
wait  patiently  until  the  door  was  opened  in  the  afternoon. 

In  1867  the  system  of  balloting  for  seats  in  the  Strangers' 
Gallery  was  first  instituted.  Members  had  long  been  in  the 
habit  of  giving  orders  "  to  bearer,"  written  on  the  backs  of 
envelopes  or  any  scraps  of  paper,  which  were  freely  forged 
and  transferred  from  one  visitor  to  another.  Strangers  who 
were  armed  with  these  gallery  passes  were  now  compelled 
to  ballot  for  precedence,  and  though  on  important  nights  the 
number  of  disappointed  applicants  was  great,  visitors  gained 
the  advantage  of  not  being  kept  waiting  for  hours  on  the 
chance  of  obtaining  a  seat. 

This  system  continued  to  obtain  until  the  time  of  the 
Fenian  scares,  in  1885,  when,  owing  to  the  fact  that  two 
strangers  admitted  to  the  Gallery  on  August  4th  proved  to 
be  well-known  dynamiters,  the  police  became  alarmed  for 
the  safety  of  the  House.  To  prevent  the  recurrence  of  such 
an  unwelcome  visit  it  was  ordered  that  all  applications  for 
admission  should  be  made  in  writing  to  the  Speaker's 
secretary.  The  signatures  of  the  strangers  applying  for 
places  could  thus  be  verified  by  comparison  with  their 
signatures  in  the  Gallery  book. 

The  deliberations  of  Parliament  are  supposed  to  be 
secret,  and,  though  the  practice  of  avoiding  publicity  has 
long  fallen  into  disuse,  it  is  still  always  possible  for  strangers 
to  be  excluded  should  the  occasion  demand  it.  They  were 
not  welcomed  with  effusion  in  either  House,  a  century  or 
two  ago.  In  1740  Lord  Chancellor  Hardwicke  declared  to 
the  Lords  that  "  another  thing  doth  diminish  the  dignity  of 
the  House ;  admitting  all  kinds  of  auditors  to  your  debates. 
This  makes  them  be  what  they  ought  not  to  be,  and  gives 
occasion  to  saying  things  which  else  would  not  be  said."-^ 
1  "  Life  of  Lord  Hardwicke,"  voL  i.  p.  489, 


264  THE  MOTHER  OF   PARLIAMENTS 

Thirty  years  later,  as  we  have  already  seen,  during  a  speech 
of  the  Duke  of  Manchester's  on  the  state  of  the  nation, 
Lord  Gower  rose  and  desired  that  the  House  of  Lords  should 
be  cleared  of  all  who  were  not  peers.  The  Duke  of  Richmond 
strongly  objected,  considering  this  an  insult  to  the  members 
of  Parliament  and  others  who  were  present.  Chatham  tried 
in  vain  to  address  the  House,  and  finally,  as  a  dignified 
protest,  he  and  a  score  of  other  peers  left  the  Chamber. 

Somewhat  similar  scenes  have  occurred  in  the  Lower 
House.  On  one  occasion,  indeed,  the  members  of  the 
popular  assembly  so  far  forgot  themselves  as  to  hurl  epithets 
of  abuse  at  a  distinguished  stranger  who  was  in  their  midst. 
On  February  22,  1837,  Sheil  made  a  violent  attack  in  the 
House  of  Commons  upon  ex-Lord  Chancellor  Lyndhurst, 
the  Irish  Municipal  Bill  being  under  discussion  at  the  time. 
Lyndhurst  had  been  accused  of  saying  that  three-quarters  of 
the  people  of  Ireland  were  aliens  in  blood  and  only  awaited 
a  favourable  opportunity  to  cast  off  the  government  of 
P^ngland  as  the  yoke  of  a  tyrannical  oppressor,  and  this  had 
roused  the  Irish  to  fury.  The  ex-Chanccllor  happened  to  stroll 
into  the  House  of  Commons  while  Sheil  was  speaking,  and 
took  his  seat  below  the  bar.  Immediately  the  Irish  members 
turned  upon  him,  and  for  about  ten  minutes  shouted  insults 
at  the  venerable  statesman,  who  remained  apparently  unmoved 
by  the  clamour.^ 

Up  to  within  the  last  forty  years  it  was  quite  sufficient 
for  a  member  of  Parliament  to  inform  the  Speaker  that  he 
"espied  strangers  "  for  the  galleries  to  be  instantly  cleared. 
On  April  27,  1875,  however,  the  cantankerous  and  obstruc- 
tive Mr.  Biggar  brought  this  rule  into  disrepute  by  calling  the 
Speaker's  attention  to  the  Strangers'  Gallery  at  a  time  when 
its  occupants  included  the  Prince  of  Wales  and  the  German 
Ambassador.  In  accordance  with  the  regulations  of  the 
House,  these  distinguished  visitors  were  compelled  to  leave 
forthwith.  This  quite  gratuitous  act  of  discourtesy  on  the 
part  of  an  extremely  unpopular  member  was  little  to  the 
'  Grcville,  "  Memoirs,"  vol,  iii.  p.  389. 


STRANGERS   IN   PARLIAMENT  265 

taste  of  the  House.  The  sentiments  of  the  majority  were 
aptly  voiced  by  Disraeli  when  he  begged  Mr.  Biggar  to  bear 
in  mind  that  the  House  was  above  all  things  "  an  assembly  of 
gentlemen."  On  the  Prime  Minister's  motion,  carried  by  a 
unanimous  vote,  the  Standing  Order  relative  to  the  exclusion 
of  strangers  was  temporarily  suspended,  and  the  galleries 
reopened.  A  resolution  of  Disraeli's  was  eventually  adopted 
whereby  strangers  could  only  be  compelled  to  withdraw  on 
a  division  in  favour  of  their  exclusion,  no  debate  or  amend- 
ment being  permitted;  though  it  was  still  left  to  the  dis- 
cretion of  the  Speaker  or  Chairman  to  order  their  withdrawal 
at  any  time  and  from  any  part  of  the  House,  if  necessary. 

Visitors  to  the  House  of  Commons  enter  by  St.  Stephen's 
porch,  where,  until  recently,  they  were  interrogated  by  the 
police  constable  on  duty.  If  their  answers  proved  satisfac- 
tory, they  were  admitted  to  the  Central  Hall,  whence  they 
dispatched  printed  cards  inscribed  with  their  names,  addresses, 
and  the  object  of  their  visit,  to  such  members  as  they  desired 
to  see.  The  duty  of  ministering  to  the  needs  of  friends  who 
were  anxious  to  listen  to  the  debates  was  one  of  the  minor 
discomforts  of  membership.  There  is  a  story  of  a  member 
of  Parliament  receiving  a  letter  from  a  constituent  asking 
for  a  pass  to  the  Speaker's  Gallery  or,  if  that  were  impos- 
sible, six  tickets  to  the  Zoological  Gardens.  The  natural 
inference  to  be  gathered  from  this  request  must  be  that  the 
House  of  Commons,  which  Lord  Brougham  once  likened  to 
a  menagerie,  is  capable  of  affording  six  times  as  much 
entertainment  as  the  monkey-house  in  Regent's  Park. 

Until  the  last  session  of  1908  members  could  obtain  two 
daily  orders  of  admission  for  strangers  from  the  Speaker's 
secretary  or  the  Sergeant-at-Arms,  the  Speaker's  and 
Strangers'  Galleries  (which  were  amalgamated  in  1888)  pro- 
viding accommodation  for  about  one  hundred  and  sixty 
visitors.  In  the  autumn  of  1908,  however,  a  man  who  wished 
to  advertise  the  cause  of  Female  Suffrage — and  incidentally 
himself— threw  a  number  of  pamphlets  down  from  the 
gallery  on  to  the  floor  of  the  House,  and  was  summarily 


266  THE   MOTHER   OF   PARLIAMENTS 

ejected.  This  resulted  in  an  order  issued  by  the  Speaker 
that  for  the  remainder  of  the  session  no  strangers  should  be 
admitted.  The  Strangers'  Galleries  were  reopened  in  May 
of  the  following  year,  and  new  regulations  were  framed  to 
prevent  the  recurrence  of  such  a  scene.  Visitors  are  now 
permitted  to  apply  at  a  special  bureau  in  St.  Stephen's  Hall, 
at  any  time  after  4.15  p.m.  and,  if  there  is  room,  are  at  once 
admitted  to  the  gallery  without  the  formality  of  searching 
for  a  member.  Each  stranger  signs  a  declaration  undertaking 
to  abstain  from  making  any  interruption  or  disturbance,  and 
to  obey  the  rules  for  the  maintenance  of  order  in  the  galleries. 

Applause,  or  the  expression  of  any  feeling,  is  strictly  pro- 
hibited in  the  Strangers'  Gallery,  and  the  attendants  on  duty 
there  have  instructions  to  expel  offenders  without  waiting  for 
any  explanation  of  their  conduct.  In  the  commencement  of 
the  last  century  a  stranger  once  shouted,  "You're  a  liar!" 
while  O'Conncll  was  speaking,  and  was  arrested  by  the 
Scrgeant-at-Arms  and  compelled  to  apologise  the  next  day.^ 
Since  that  time,  until  recently,  visitors  have  behaved  with 
commendable  decorum. 

The  instances  of  strangers  causing  a  commotion  in  Parlia- 
ment by  extraordinary  or  improper  behaviour  are  few  in 
number.  The  assassination  of  Spencer  Perceval,  the  Prime 
Minister,  by  a  visitor  in  18 12  is  undoubtedly  the  most  tragic 
event  that  has  ever  taken  place  within  the  precincts  of  the  House 
of  Commons,  the  murderer  being  a  mad  Liverpool  merchant, 
named  Bellingham,  who  had  a  grievance  against  the  Govern- 
ment. The  recollection  of  this  outrage  almost  gave  rise  to 
a  panic  some  years  later  when  a  wild-eyed,  haggard  man 
rushed  into  the  House  while  Sir  Robert  Peel  was  speaking, 
and  walked  boldly  up  to  the  Minister.  Stopping  within  a 
few  feet  of  the  speaker,  this  alarming  stranger  made  a  low 
bow.  "  I  beg  your  pardon,"  he  remarked  suavely,  "  but  I 
am  an  unfortunate  man  who  has  just  been  poisoned  by  Earl 
Grey ! "  He  was  at  once  removed  to  the  nearest  lunatic 
asylum.'"^ 

'  Boyd's  "Reminiscences,"  p.  49.       '■'  Doyle's  "  Recollections,"  p.  174. 


STRANGERS   IN   PARLIAMENT  267 

Other  strangers  have  from  time  to  time  created  a  mild 
consternation  or  amusement  by  some  eccentricity  of  dress  or 
deportment.  In  1833  a  young  Scotsman  crossed  the  bar  of 
the  Commons  and  sat  deliberately  down  on  a  bench  among 
the  members,  where  he  remained  undiscovered  for  some  time. 
In  the  same  year  a  compatriot,  garbed  in  full  Highland 
costume,  unwittingly  entered  the  side  gallery  reserved  for 
members,  and  prepared  to  listen  to  the  debate  from  this 
comfortable  quarter.  On  being  informed  of  his  mistake,  this 
hardy  Northman  was  so  overcome  with  terror  at  the  con- 
templation of  his  crime  and  the  consequences  that  would 
probably  ensue — nothing  short  of  death  could,  he  imagined, 
be  the  punishment  appropriate  to  such  an  offence — that  he 
took  to  his  heels  and  ran  like  a  hare,  never  pausing  for  breath 
until  he  reached  Somerset  House,  a  mile  and  a  half  away.^ 
Sir  Wilfrid  Lawson  in  1894  was  shown  a  man  in  the  Lobby 
who  had  been  turned  out  of  the  gallery  for  being  drunk. 
On  asking  what  crime  the  stranger  had  committed,  he  was 
told  that  he  had  said  "  Bosh ! "  to  some  of  the  speeches. 
This,  as  Sir  Wilfrid  remarked,  was  not  conclusive  evidence 
of  drunkenness.^ 

A  strange  Irishman  provided  the  peers  with  some  amuse- 
ment in  1908  by  appearing  in  the  House  of  Lords  attired  in 
a  saffron-coloured  kilt  and  toga  which  he  claimed  to  be  his 
national  costume,  and  which  had  doubtless  been  so  ever  since 
the  days  of  Darwin's  missing  link.  He  turned  out  to  be  harmless 
enough,  and,  though  momentarily  disturbing  to  Black  Rod's 
peace  of  mind,  did  nothing  more  alarming  than  to  provide 
another  example  of  the  well-known  fact  that  it  is  possible  to 
be  a  Celt  and  at  the  same  time  to  lack  a  sense  of  humour. 

Strangers  of  the  male  sex  who  visit  the  Upper  House 
may  be  accommodated  in  the  large  Strangers'  Gallery  facing 
the  throne,  or,  if  members  of  Parliament,  in  the  special 
House  of  Commons'  gallery,  or  at  the  bar.  Privy  councillors 
and  the  eldest  sons  of  peers  are  allowed  to  sit  or  stand  upon 

^  Grant's  "  Recollections,"  p.  16. 

-'  G.  W.  E.  Russell's  "  Sir  Wilfrid  Lawson,"  p.  227. 


268  THE   MOTHER  OF   PARLIAMENTS 

the  steps  of  the  Throne,  and  there  are  special  galleries  set 
apart  for  the  use  of  the  corps  diplomatique  and  the  Press. 

The  question  of  allowing  women  to  attend  the  debates  has 
long  presented  difficulties  to  the  parliamentary  mind,  though 
at  one  time  it  was  not  unusual  to  sec  lady  visitors  actually 
sitting  in  the  Chamber  itself  side  by  side  with  their  husbands 
and  friends.  "  Ought  females  to  be  admitted  }  "  asked  Jeremy 
Bcntham,  many  years  ago,  unhesitatingly  answering  his  own 
question  in  the  negative  a  moment  later.  To  remove  them 
from  an  assembly  where  tranquil  reason  ought  alone  to  reign 
was,  as  he  explained,  to  avow  their  influence,  and  should  not 
therefore  be  wounding  to  their  pride.  "  The  seductions  of 
eloquence  and  ridicule  are  most  dangerous  instruments  in  a 
political  assembly,"  he  says.  "  Admit  females — you  add  new 
force  to  these  seductions."  In  the  presence  of  the  gentler  sex, 
Bentham  suggests,  everything  must  necessarily  take  an 
exalted  tone,  brilliant  and  tragical — "excitement  and  tropes 
would  be  scattered  everywhere."  All  would  be  sacrificed  to 
vanity  and  the  display  of  wit,  to  please  the  ladies  in  the 
audience.^  If  the  serious  business  of  debate  were  to  be 
sacrificed  to  "  tropes,"  no  doubt  the  British  Constitution 
would  be  considerably  endangered  ;  but  experience  has 
taught  us  that  the  presence  of  ladies  has  not  afiected  the 
debates  detrimentally,  and  the  excitement  caused  in  the 
breasts  of  our  legislators  by  the  sight  of  a  contingent  of 
the  fair  sex  is  not  of  a  kind  to  prove  alarming. 

Women  have  taken  a  strong  interest  in  political  matters 
in  England  from  very  early  days.^  We  even  find  them 
giving  occasional  expression  to  their  views  upon  some 
Government  measure  with  a  violence  which   did  not  at  all 


*  "  Works,"  vol.  ii.  327. 

-  Ladies  of  rank  often  attended  the  Saxon  Witenagemots,  and  in  the 
reigns  of  Henry  III.,  Edward  I.,  and  Kdward  III.  certain  abbesses  were 
summoned  to  send  proxies  to  Tarliament.  (See  G.  B.  Smith's  "  History,' 
vol.  i.  p.  II.)  In  the  sixteenth  century  the  right  to  elect  a  member  for 
the  rotten  borough  of  Gatton  was  in  the  hands  of  a  woman.  See 
Porritt's  "  Unreformed  House  of  Commons,"  vol.  i.  p.  97. 


1^ 


STRANGERS   IN   PARLIAMENT  269 

commend  itself  to  the  authorities.  In  the  Journals  of  the 
House  for  March  5,  1606,  is  the  following  entry:  "A 
Clamour  of  Women  against  Sir  Robert  Johnson,  for  speaking 
against  a  Bill  touching  Wherry-men ;  upon  complaint  of 
which  the  Commons  ordered,  that  Notice  should  be  given  to 
the  Justices  of  the  Peace,  to  prevent  and  suppress  such 
disorders."^  What  steps  the  Justices  of  the  Peace  took  to 
quell  this  feminine  clamour  history  does  not  relate.  In  1675 
some  confusion  was  caused  by  the  Speaker  observing  ladies 
in  the  gallery,  and  though  a  member  suggested  that  they 
were  not  ladies  at  all,  but  merely  men  in  fine  clothes,  the 
Speaker  insisted  that  he  had  caught  sight  of  petticoats. 

In  the  time  of  Queen  Anne  ladies  were  strongly  infected 
with  the  spirit  of  party.  Addison  declares  that  even  the 
patches  they  wore  on  their  faces  were  so  situated  that  the 
political  views  of  the  wearer  could  be  recognised  at  a  glance. 
Friends  might  be  distinguished  from  foes  in  this  delightful 
fashion,  Tory  ladies  wearing  their  patches  on  the  left,  Whigs 
on  the  right  side  of  the  face.  An  old  number  of  the 
"  Spectator "  ^  contains  the  sad  story  of  one  Rosalinda,  a 
famous  Whig  partisan  who  suffered  much  annoyance  on  this 
account.  The  fact  that  Rosalinda  had  a  beautiful  mole  on 
the  Tory  part  of  her  forehead  gave  her  enemies  the  chance 
of  misrepresenting  her  face  as  having  revolted  against  the 
Whig  interest — an  accusation  which  naturally  depressed  the 
poor  lady  considerably. 

The  House  of  Lords  has  always  been  more  hospitable 
than  the  Commons  in  its  treatment  of  women.  The  two  side 
galleries  are  reserved  for  peeresses — though  a  certain  portion 
is  kept  for  members  of  the  corps  diplomatique,  and  for  the 
Commons — and  there  is  a  large  box  on  the  floor  of  the  House 
where  the  wives  of  peers'  eldest  sons  sit,  and  a  number  of  seats 
below  the  bar  to  which  Black  Rod  may  introduce  ladies. 

The  peers  have  not,  however,  been  exempt  from  the 
occasional  inconveniences  attaching  to  the  presence  of  women. 

1  "  Observations,  Rules,  etc.,"  p.  162. 

2  No.  812,  June  2, 171 1. 


270  THE   MOTHER   OF   PARLIAMENTS 

Lord  Shaftesbury,  during  the  term  of  his  Lord  Chancellorship, 
complained  bitterly  of  the  "  droves  of  ladies  that  attended  all 
causes,"  and  said  that  things  had  reached  such  a  pass  that 
men  "borrowed  or  hired  of  their  friends,  handsome  sisters  or 
daughters  to  deliver  their  petitions."^  And  in  1739,  the  fair 
Kitty,  Duchess  of  Oueensberry,  headed  a  storming  party  and 
successfully  besieged  a  gallery  in  the  House  of  Lords  from 
which  ladies  had  been  excluded  in  order  to  make  room  for 
members  of  the  Commons.-  Greville  declares  that  the  steps 
of  the  Throne  were  inconveniently  thronged  with  women  in 
1829.  "  Every  fool  in  London  thinks  it  necessary  to  be 
there,"  he  says.  "  They  fill  the  whole  space,  and  put  them- 
selves in  front,  with  their  large  bonnets,  without  either  fear 
or  shame,"  ^ 

In  1775,  women  were  allowed  to  be  present  in  Parliament 
to  listen  to  election  petitions,  and  continued  to  be  admitted 
to  the  body  of  the  House  of  Commons  until  1778.''  In  this 
year  a  member  named  Captain  Johnstone  insisted  that 
strangers  should  withdraw,  and  the  female  section  of  the 
audience  absolutely  declined  to  do  so.  Threats,  entreaties, 
all  were  useless.  With  the  charming  obstinacy  of  their 
sex,  the  fair  visitors  clung  to  their  seats,  and  refused  to 
budge  an  inch.  Among  the  ladies  who  led  this  revolt 
was  the  Duchess  of  Devonshire,  and  a  celebrated  beauty  of 
the  name  of  Musters.  They  were  assisted  by  a  certain 
number  of  male  admirers,  and,  so  successful  were  their 
efforts,  that  two  long  hours  elapsed  before  the  galleries 
could  be  cleared.  This  incident  caused  the  Speaker  to  for- 
bid the   future   admittance  of  women,  and    until  after  the 

'  Townsend's  "  Memoirs,"    vol.  ii.  p. "461, 

2  "Letters  and  Works  of  Lady  M.  W.  Montagu,''  vol.  ii.  p.  37.  (I 
have  described  this  incident  at  length  in  "A  Group  of  Scottish  Women,' 
pp.  137-S.) 

^  "  Memoirs,"  4  April,  1829. 

•*  See  A.  Young's  "Autobiography,"  p.  17.  (Election  Petitions  were 
tried  before  the  whole  House,  and  thus  resolved  themselves  into  mere 
party  struggles.  In  1770,  Grenville  moved  that  they  be  referred  to  small 
committees.) 


STRANGERS   IN   PARLIAMENT  271 

fire  of  1834,  ladies  could  only  listen  to  debates  clandestinely, 
and  in  a  manner  which  entailed  the  maximum  of  personal 
discomfort.  Their  absence  does  not  seem  to  have  had  any 
effect  upon  the  length  of  the  debates.  "  I  was  in  hopes  that 
long  speeches  would  have  been  knocked  on  the  head  when 
the  ladies  were  excluded  from  the  galleries,"  said  the  door- 
keeper ;  "  they  often  used  to  keep  the  members  up."  ^ 

When  the  Commons  sat  in  the  old  St.  Stephen's  Chapel, 
that  chamber  was  divided  into  two  parts  by  a  false  roof. 
The  upper  half  consisted  of  a  big  empty  room  like  a  barn, 
with  unglazed  windows.  In  the  centre  of  the  floor  of  this 
apartment  was  the  ventilating  shaft  of  the  House,  a  rough 
casement  with  eight  small  openings,  situated  exactly  above 
the  chandelier  in  the  ceiling  of  the  chamber  below.  To 
this  room  were  conducted  the  lady  friends  of  members 
desirous  of  catching  a  glimpse  of  the  Commons  at  work. 
The  door  was  locked  upon  them,  and  they  were  permitted 
to  sit  on  a  circular  bench  which  surrounded  the  ventilator, 
and  peer  down  through  the  openings,  while  every  now  and 
then  their  imprisonment  would  be  lightened  by  a  visit  from 
some  kindly  attendant,  who  would  tell  them  the  name  of 
the  member  addressing  the  House.  The  only  light  was 
provided  by^  a  farthing  dip  stuck  in  a  tin  candlestick,  and 
the  room  was  gloomy  and  depressing.  It  is  an  ill  wind, 
however,  that  blows  nobody  any  good,  and  once  when 
O'Connell  went  up  there  expecting  to  find  his  wife,  he 
kissed  the  Dowager  Duchess  of  Richmond  by  mistake.^ 

Maria  Edgeworth  has  left  a  description  of  a  visit  she 
paid  to  this  melancholy  spot  in  1822.  "In  the  middle  of 
the  garret,"  she  says,  "  is  what  seemed  like  a  sentry  box  of 
deal  boards,  and  old  chairs  placed  round  it ;  on  these  we 
got,  and  stood  and  peeped  over  the  top  of  the  boards."  ^ 
From  this  vantage-point  she  could  see  the  chandelier  blazing 
just  beneath   her,  and  below  it   again  the  Table,  with  the 

'  Pearson's  "  Political  Dictionary,"  p.  34. 

-  Grantley  Berkeley's  "  Recollections,"  vol.  i.  p.  369. 

3  "  Life  and  Letters,"  vol.  ii.  p.  66. 


272  THE   MOTHER   OF   PARLIAMENTS 

mace  resting  upon  it,  and  the  Speaker's  polished  boots — 
nothing  more. 

The  twenty-five  tickets  issued  nightly  by  the  Sergeant- 
at-Arms  for  admission  to  this  dungeon  were  much  sought 
after,  a  fact  which  testifies  eloquently  to  the  political  enthusiasm 
of  our  great-grandmothers. 

In  spite  of  the  Speaker's  order,  ladies  still  continued 
occasionally  to  find  their  way  into  more  comfortable  parts 
of  the  House.  Wraxall  declares  that  he  saw  the  famous 
Duchess  of  Gordon  sitting  in  the  Strangers'  Gallery  dressed 
as  a  man.^  And  in  1834,  ^  sister  of  some  member  entered 
one  of  the  side  galleries,  and  sat  there  undisturbed  for  a  long 
time,  the  gallantry  of  the  officials  forbidding  them  to  turn 
her  out.^ 

When  the  new  Houses  of  Parliament  were  built,  slightly 
better  accommodation  was  provided  for  the  fair  sex.  It  was 
at  first  proposed  that  they  should  be  seated  in  the  open 
galleries  of  the  Commons,  but  this  suggestion  met  with  little 
support.  Miss  Harriet  Martincau,  writing  somewhere  about 
1876,  prophesied  pessimistically  that  if  such  a  proposition 
were  carried  out,  the  galleries  would  be  occupied  by  giddy 
and  frivolous  women,  lovers  of  sensation,  with  plenty  of  time 
upon  their  hands  ;  "  a  nuisance  to  the  Legislature  and  a  serious 
disadvantage  to  the  wiser  of  their  own  sex."  ^  This  idea 
seems  to  have  been  the  popular  one,  and  it  was  resolved  to 
keep  the  ladies  who  attended  debates  as  much  in  the 
background  as  possible. 

The  present  gallery  has  many  disadvantages.  Its 
occupants  are  enclosed  in  a  cage  which  prevents  them  from 
obtaining  a  good  view  of  the  proceedings,  and  altogether 
conceals  them  from  the  gaze  of  the  members.  Repeated 
attempts  have  been  made  to  secure  better  accommodation, 
notably  by  Mr.  Grantlcy  Berkeley,  to  whom  a  number  of 
ladies  in    1841    presented    a   piece   of   plate   in    recognition 

'  "  Posthumous  Memoirs." 

*  Grant's  "Recollections,"  p.  17. 

'  "  History  of  the  Peace,"  vol.  iii.  p.  375. 


STRANGERS   IN   PARLIAMENT  273 

of  his  services  on  their  behalf.  The  House  is  determined, 
however,  that  its  deliberations  shall  not  be  affected  by  the 
presence  of  any  disturbing  element,  agreeing  apparently  with 
that  member  who  assured  the  Speaker  that  if  ladies  were 
permitted  to  sit  undisguised  in  the  gallery,  "  the  feelings  of 
the  gallant  old  soldiers  and  gentlemen  would  be  so  excited 
and  turned  from  political  affairs,  that  they  would  not  be  able 
to  do  their  duty  to  their  country."  ^ 

The  suggestion  has  often  been  made  that  the  grille  should 
be  taken  away  from  the  front  of  the  Ladies'  Gallery,  but  it  is 
doubtful  whether  the  removal  of  this  screen  would  commend 
itself  to  the  visitors.  Its  retention  bestows  one  undoubted 
benefit  upon  them  ;  it  allows  ladies  to  steal  away  unnoticed 
during  the  speech  of  some  bore,  with  whom  they  may  be 
personally  acquainted,  or  whose  feelings  they  would  not  like 
to  hurt.  This  is  an  advantage  which  cannot  be  esteemed  too 
highly. 

The  Ladies*  Gallery,  which,  as  has  often  been  said,  might  be 
called,  but  for  its  occupants,  a  veritable  "  chamber  of  horrors," 
is  not  considered  to  be  within  the  House.  Consequently, 
when  strangers  are  forced  to  withdraw,  ladies  may  still  remain. 
They  are  even  allowed  to  be  present  during  prayers.  The 
feminine  privilege  of  not  being  excluded  with  other  strangers 
is  shared  by  the  peers,  who,  since  1698,  have  always  (with 
the  exception  of  a  few  years)  had  a  gallery  reserved  for  them. 

Up  to  a  short  time  ago  members  of  the  House  of  Commons 
were  allowed  to  introduce  ladies  to  the  inner  lobby,  whence 
they  could  obtain  a  fragmentary  glimpse  of  the  proceedings 
through  a  small  window.  This  privilege  was  withdrawn  in 
1908,  when  a  lady  who  was  the  guest  of  a  member  sought 
to  make  some  return  for  his  hospitality  by  rushing  on  to  the 
floor  of  the  House  and  shouting,  "  Votes  for  Women ! " 
Shortly  before  this  two  other  ladies  in  the  gallery,  also  the 
guests  of  members,  had  attempted  to  prove  the  fitness  of 
their  sex  for  the  franchise  by  chaining  themselves  to  the 
grille  and  screaming.  This  was  the  first  instance  of  unruly 
'  Berkeley's  "  Recollections,"  vol.  i.  p.  359. 

T 


274  THE   MOTHER   OF   PARLIAMENTS 

behaviour  in  the  Ladies'  Gallery  since  June  of  the  year  1888, 
when  some  women  applauded  a  speech,  much  to  the  indigna- 
tion of  Speaker  Peel.  It  resulted  in  the  closing  of  the  gallery, 
and  the  exclusion  of  all  but  the  Speaker's  own  personal 
guests,  on  whose  sense  of  honour  and  decency  he  could  rely. 
In  1909,  however,  the  Ladies'  Gallery  was  once  more  thrown 
open  to  members  of  the  fair  sex,  tickets  of  admission  being 
confined  to  the  relatives  of  members,  who  balloted  for  them 
a  week  in  advance.  The  ladies  were  required  to  sign  an 
undertaking  to  behave  decorously  while  they  occupied  seats 
in  the  gallery,  and  their  exact  relationship  to  members  was 
not  inquired  into  too  closely. 


CHAPTER    XVI 
PARLIAMENTARY   REPORTING 

OF  all  the  strangers  who  honour  the  Palace  of  West- 
minster with  their  presence  none  are  treated  with 
greater  consideration  than  the  reporters.  This  touching 
regard  shown  for  the  comfort  of  the  Press  is  a  flower  of 
modern  growth.  It  has  blossomed  forth  within  the  last  fifty 
years,  watered  by  that  love  of  publicity  which  is  nowadays 
as  common  in  St.  Stephen's  as  elsewhere.  Journalists  are  in 
the  habit  of  complaining  that  the  public  no  longer  requires 
those  full  reports  of  parliamentary  utterances  which  a  few 
years  ago  were  considered  a  very  necessary  part  of  the  day's 
news.  Short  political  sketches  have  taken  the  place  of  full 
verbatim  reports,  and  very  few  papers  give  anything  but 
a  rough  outline  of  the  daily  parliamentary  proceedings. 
Politicians  themselves,  however,  do  not  appear  to  share 
the  general  aversion  to  reading  their  speeches  in  print,  and  it 
is  strange  to  contrast  the  warm  welcome  accorded  by 
Parliament  to  modern  journalism  with  the  cold  reception  met 
with  by  reporters  in  the  days  of  our  ancestors. 

In  the  Order  Book  of  the  House  of  Commons  there  still 
exists  a  Standing  Order  which,  though  long  in  disuse,  has 
never  been  repealed,  declaring  it  a  gross  breach  of  privilege 
to  print  or  publish  anything  relating  to  the  proceedings  of 
either  House.  This  is  but  a  relic  of  those  distant  days  when 
the  perpetual  conflicts  between  the  Commons  and  the  Crown 
made  secrecy  a  necessity  of  debate. 

In   the   sixteenth   and  seventeenth   centuries  Parliament 

275 


276  THE   MOTHER   OF   PARLIAMENTS 

was  anything  but  anxious  that  the  result  of  its  deliberations 
should  be  made  public,  except  in  such  a  form  as  it  considered 
desirable.  The  Commons  especially  feared  that  information 
as  to  their  intentions  should  reach  the  King's  ears,  and  took 
every  possible  precaution  to  avert  such  a  calamity.  In  this 
they  were  not  altogether  successful.  During  the  debates  on 
the  proposed  impeachment  of  the  Duke  of  Buckingham,  in 
1626,  members  were  very  busy  with  their  pencils.  The 
King  himself  had  as  many  as  four  or  five  amateur  note- 
takers  present  to  supply  him  with  reports,  and  among 
the  private  members  were  many  other  unofficial  reporters. 
Of  these,  perhaps,  the  most  famous  was  Sir  Symonds  D'Ewes, 
the  member  for  Sudbury,  a  lawyer  with  only  one  eye, 
devout,  ambitious,  conceited,  and  something  of  a  snob.^ 
Records  were,  to  his  way  of  thinking,  the  most  ravishing  and 
satisfying  part  of  human  knowledge.  His  historical  re- 
searches had  given  him  an  acquaintance  with  precedents 
which  was  long  the  envy  of  his  colleagues  in  Parliament. 
In  1629  he  transcribed  the  Journals  of  both  Houses  from  the 
original  Journal  books,  adding  comments  of  his  own,  and 
inserting  various  interesting  speeches  which  he  obtained  from 
private  manuscripts  and  diaries.  When  objections  were  raised 
to  his  incorrigible  cacoethes  scribendi,  "If  you  will  not 
permit  us  to  write,"  he  observed  pathetically,  "  we  must  go  to 
sleep,  as  some  among  us  do,  or  go  to  plays,  as  others  have 
done."^  The  contemplation  of  such  tragic  alternatives  did 
not,  however,  shake  the  resolution  of  the  Commons,  and  the 
practice  of  note-taking  was  put  a  stop  to  by  a  peremptory 
order  of  the  House. 

Sir  Symonds'  peculiar  knowledge  of  parliamentary 
precedents  resulted  in  his  perpetual  interference  with  the 
procedure  of  the  House.     His  frequent  attempts  to  set  the 

'  "  Next  to  religion,"  he  says  in  his  "  Autobiography  "  (i.  309),  "  my 
chief  aim  is  to  enrich  my  posterity  with  good  blood,  knowing  it  to  be  the 
greatest  honour  that  can  betide  a  family,  to  be  often  linked  with  the 
female  inheritrices  of  ancient  stock." 

'^  Forster's  "Grand  Remonstrance,"  p.  124  n. 


PARLIAMENTARY   REPORTING  277 

Speaker  right  upon  various  points  of  order  at  length 
irritated  the  Commons  to  the  verge  of  madness,  and  it  was 
with  a  sigh  of  relief  that  his  colleagues  bade  him  farewell 
when  he  reluctantly  retired  into  private  life  to  continue 
uninterrupted  his  antiquarian  pursuits, 

Rushworth,  who  was  Assistant  Clerk  of  the  Commons  at 
the  time  of  the  Long  Parliament,  proved  almost  as  energetic 
a  reporter  as  D'Ewes,  and  thereby  repeatedly  got  himself 
into  trouble.  In  1642,  he  was  forbidden  to  take  any  notes 
without  the  sanction  of  the  House,  and  a  Committee  was 
appointed  to  look  through  his  manuscripts  and  settle  how 
much  of  them  was  worthy  of  preservation.  The  result  of 
Rushworth's  passion  for  reporting  is  the  "  Historical  Collec- 
tions," which  Carlyle  has  called  a  "  rag-fair  of  a  book ;  the 
mournfullest  torpedo  rubbish-heap  of  jewels  buried  under 
sordid  wreck  and  dust  and  dead  ashes,  one  jewel  to  the 
waggon-load."  ^  One  of  the  undoubted  gems  from  this  dust- 
heap  is  a  full  account  of  the  proceedings  in  Parliament  on 
the  famous  occasion  of  Charles  I.'s  violent  attempt  to  arrest 
the  five  members.  This  dramatic  incident  does  not  appear 
to  have  deprived  Rushworth  of  his  presence  of  mind.  While 
the  Commons  sat  openmouthed  and  aghast,  the  Assistant 
Clerk  calmly  continued  to  take  notes  of  every  word  that  fell 
from  the  royal  lips.  For  this  posterity  owes  him  a  debt  of  the 
deepest  gratitude. 

The  right  of  Parliament  to  deliberate  in  secret  was  long 
jealously  guarded,  any  breach  of  that  privilege  being 
punished  with  extreme  severity.  In  1641,  an  oration 
delivered  by  Lord  Digby  on  the  Bill  for  Strafford's 
attainder,  and  circulated  on  his  own  initiative,  was  ordered  to 
be  burnt  by  the  common  hangman.  At  the  same  time  it 
was  formally  resolved  that  no  member  should  publish  any 
speech  without  the  express  permission  of  the  House. 

In  the    reign   of  Charles    II.  such  men   as  Shaftesbury, 
Halifax,  Hampden,  and  Hyde  were  not  reported,  though  the 
first  would  occasionally  issue  his  speeches  in  pamphlet  form. 
'  Cromwell's  "  Letters  and  Speeches,"  vol.  i.  p.  79. 


278  THE   MOTHER   OF   PARLIAMENTS 

Towards  the  middle  of  the  seventeenth  century,  however,  the 
House  ordered  utterances  of  exceptional  importance  to  be 
printed.  During  the  Long  Parliament  licensed  reports 
appeared  under  the  title  of  "  Diurnal  Occurrences  of  Parlia- 
ment," and  later  on  a  meagre  outline  of  the  daily  proceedings 
of  Parliament  began  to  be  published.  But  when  Locke,  in 
1675,  printed  a  report  of  a  House  of  Lords'  debate,  calling  it 
"A  letter  from  a  Person  of  Quality  to  His  Friend,"  it  was 
ordered  by  the  Privy  Council  to  be  burnt. 

The  Licensing  Act  of  1662  confined  printing  to  London, 
York,  Oxford,  and  Cambridge,  and  did  not  permit  the 
number  of  master  printers  to  exceed  twenty.  The  Commons' 
refusal  in  1695  to  renew  the  censorship  marks  the  commence- 
ment of  the  emancipation  of  the  Press. 

A  system  of  newsletters  had  been  started  with  the 
Restoration,  whereby  the  outside  world  could  learn  some- 
thing of  the  doings  of  Parliament.  This  no  doubt  whetted  the 
public  appetite,  and  increased  the  popular  interest  in  political 
affairs.  In  1694,  however,  it  was  resolved  in  Parliament 
that  "  no  newsletter  writers  do  in  their  letters  or  other  papers 
'  that  they  disperse  presume  to  intermeddle  with  the  debates 
or  any  other  proceedings  of  the  House." 

Newsletters  were  rapidly  followed  by  regular  newspapers, 
which  supplied  their  readers  with  somewhat  imaginative 
accounts  of  the  debates.  The  periodicals  of  William  III.'s 
day  sometimes  reported  the  speeches  of  particular  speakers, 
who  contributed  their  manuscripts  to  the  papers.  During 
the  factious  years  that  followed,  the  debates  were  officially 
distributed  in  monthly  parts,  but  at  the  beginning  of  the 
eighteenth  century  the  publication  of  newspaper  reports  was 
again  declared  a  breach  of  parliamentary  privilege,  and  a 
stamp  duty  was  imposed  with  a  view  to  arresting  the  circu- 
lation of  the  Opposition  Press. 

A  regular  party  organ  first  appeared  in  Queen  Anne's 
reign.  This  was  "  The  Examiner,"  subsidised  by  Harley's 
Ministry,  and  conducted  by  Swift.  It  was  answered  by  "  The 
Whig  Examiner,"  edited  by  Addison,  which  was  followed  by 


PARLIAMENTARY   REPORTING  279 

"  Manwaring's  Medley,"  a  paper  which  soon  became  the 
recognised  journal  of  the  Opposition.^  Towards  the  close  of 
Anne's  reign  Boyer  began  to  publish  "  The  Political  State 
of  Great  Britain "  in  which  he  included  accounts  of  all  the 
important  parliamentary  debates,^  This  was  succeeded  in  17 16 
by  "  The  Historical  Register,"  which  purported  to  describe  the 
proceedings  in  both  Houses.  In  the  reports  of  the  Commons' 
debates  the  names  of  the  speakers  were  published  without 
concealment,  but  the  Lords  were  treated  more  cautiously. 
Thus,  in  an  account  of  the  Septennial  Bill,  we  find  such 
sentences  as,  "  a  noble  Duke  stood  up  and  said,"  or  "  this 
was  answered  by  a  northern  peer,"  no  further  clue  being 
given  as  to  the  identity  of  the  several  speakers.^ 

"The  Historical  Register  "was  superseded  twenty  years  later 
by  the  "  Gentleman's  Magazine,"  a  monthly  periodical  founded 
by  the  bookseller  Cave  and  edited  by  Guthrie.  Cave  used  to 
obtain  admission  to  the  House  of  Commons  for  himself  and  a 
few  friends,  and  would  there  take  surreptitious  notes  of  the 
proceedings.  These  he  subsequently  elaborated  in  some 
adjoining  coffee-house,  evolving  lengthy  and  vivid  descriptions 
of  the  debates  from  his  inner  consciousness.  His  editor  was 
the  first  journalist  to  obtain  access  to  the  official  parlia- 
mentary Journals.  The  Government  had  apparently  by  this 
time  begun  to  regard  the  Press  as  a  more  or  less  necessary 
evil,  and  thought  it  worth  while  to  pay  druthrie  a  small  sum 
for  his  services,  even  providing  him  with  a  pension  when  he 
retired. 

The  parliamentary  articles  in  the  "  Gentleman's  Magazine  " 
were  published  under  the  title  of  the  "  Senate  of  Lilliput," 
the  real  names  of  the  various  debaters  being  replaced 
by  pseudonyms  which  deceived  nobody.'*  This  periodical  is 
famous  as   being  the  medium   through  which  Dr.  Johnson 

»  Cook's  "  History  of  Party,"  vol.  i.  pp.  357,  S82.  ' 

2  May's  "  Constitutional  History,"  vol.  i.  p.  422. 

3  Hawkins'  "  Life  of  Johnson,"  vol.  xii. 

*  For  example  :  Sholmlng  for  Cholmondeley,  Ptit  for  Pitt,  and 
Gumdahm  for  Wyndham. 


28o  THE   MOTHER   OF   PARLIAMENTS 

originally  published  his  political  views.  When  he  was  first  em- 
ployed by  Cave  upon  the  staff  of  his  paper  Johnson  was 
still  struggling,  not  for  fame,  but  for  existence,  and  had  no 
objection  to  any  form  of  literary  labour  so  long  as  it  provided 
him  with  a  means  of  livelihood.  His  original  duties  consisted 
in  revising  the  rough  notes  made  by  Guthrie,  but  by  1740  he 
had  become  entirely  responsible  for  the  parliamentary  articles, 
and  five  years  later  succeeded  Guthrie  in  the  editorial  chair. 

The  reports  of  the  proceedings  were  often  written  under 
great  difficulties.  Dr.  Johnson  would  at  times  be  compelled 
to  invent  the  whole  debate,  depending  solely  upon  his 
imagination,  and  being  provided  with  nothing  more  inspiring 
than  a  list  of  the  speakers  and  of  the  subjects  under 
discussion.  "  I  wrote  that  in  a  garret !  "  he  is  always 
supposed  to  have  said  of  a  much  admired  speech  of  Pitt's, 
and  perhaps  the  oratorical  fame  of  many  a  statesman  of  that 
day  is  due  to  Dr.  Johnson's  literary  skill.  His  style  was  as 
a  rule  far  too  perfect  to  pass  for  that  of  an  ordinary  member 
of  Parliament,  and  in  his  reports  he  is  often  accused  of  giving 
not  so  much  what  the  speakers  said  as  what  they  ought  to 
have  said.  Nor  was  his  pen  an  entirely  impartial  one,  for  he 
always  took  care,  as  he  explained  to  Boswell,  that  the  "  Whig 
dogs  "  should  not  have  the  best  of  it  in  debate.  Writing  as 
he  did,  very  hurriedly  and  from  scanty  materials,  the  compila- 
tion of  parliamentary  reports  gave  him  little  satisfaction. 
As  soon  as  he  found  that  his  debates  were  thought  to  be 
genuine,  he  determined  to  cease  their  composition,  and  in  the 
later  years  of  his  life  often  expressed  regret  at  having  been 
engaged  in  work  of  this  kind. 

The  "  London  Magazine  "  was  the  next  journal  to  publish 
debates,  imitating  the  methods  of  the  "Gentleman's  Magazine." 
by  pretending  to  report  the  proceedings  of  an  imaginary 
Roman  Senate,  and  alluding  to  the  speakers  by  more  or  less 
appropriate  Latin  names. 

In  spite  of  these  various  efforts  to  establish  the  liberty 
of  the  Press,  the  attitude  of  Parliament  long  remained 
antagonistic.     In  1728  a  fresh  resolution  was  passed  in  the 


PARLIAMENTARY   REPORTING  281 

House  declaring  it  to  be  a  breach  of  privilege  for  any  one  to 
print  any  account  of  the  debates,  and  in  the  following  year  a 
printer  of  Gloucester  was  summoned  to  the  bar  of  the  Lords 
and  severely  reprimanded  for  publishing  a  report  of  their 
proceedings.^  In  1738  Speaker  Onslow  brought  up  the  subject 
of  parliamentary  reporting  in  the  Commons,  and  a  debate 
ensued.  "  If  we  do  not  put  a  speedy  stop  to  this  practice," 
said  Winnington,  "you  will  have  the  speeches  of  this  House 
every  day  printed,  even  during  your  session,  and  we  shall  be 
looked  upon  as  the  most  contemptible  assembly  on  the  face 
of  the  earth."  Pelham,  however,  was  inclined  to  deal  lightly 
with  the  Press.  "  Let  them  alone,"  he  said  once,  "  they 
make  better  speeches  for  us  than  we  can  make  for  ourselves."  "^ 
But  it  was  a  long  time  before  this  sensible  view  became 
general. 

The  struggle  between  Press  and  Parliament  reached  a 
climax  in  1771,  when  Wilkes's  paper,  the  "  North  Briton,"  was 
publishing  the  much  discussed  "Junius  letters."  Public 
opinion  was  by  this  time  becoming  gradually  alive  to  the 
necessity  for  granting  freedom  to  the  Press,  and  needed 
but  the  opportunity  to  express  itself  openly  upon  the  subject. 
The  occasion  had  at  length  arrived.  The  Commons  in  this 
year  were  much  incensed  at  the  behaviour  of  some  wretched 
City  printers  who  had  offended  against  the  privileges  of  the 
House,  and  despatched  the  Sergeant-at-Arms  to  arrest  them. 
After  much  difficulty  two  of  the  culprits  were  apprehended, 
but  on  being  taken  before  the  City  Aldermen  the  latter  at 
once  ordered  their  release.  When  a  messenger  from  the 
House  of  Commons  attempted  to  arrest  another  printer,  he 
was  himself  seized  and  carried  before  the  civic  authorities, 
charged  with  assault.  The  House  was  furious  at  this 
treatment  of  their  officer,  and  committed  the  Lord  Mayor 
and  one  of  the  offending  aldermen — both  members  of 
Parliament — to  the  Tower. 

The  Press  on  this  occasion  found  a  worthy  champion  in 

'  Raikes's  "Journal,"  vol.  ii.  p.  321. 

*  Coxe's  Pelham  Administration,  vol.  I.  p.  355. 


282  THE  MOTHER  OF   PARLIAMENTS 

Edmund  Burke.  On  the  2nd  of  March,  in  a  debate  which 
lasted  twenty-two  hours,  Burke  effectually  held  his  own,  and 
so  bullied  and  ridiculed  the  House  that  he  brought  the  whole 
business  to  a  standstill.  By  continually  forcing  divisions  and 
making  use  of  other  obstructive  tactics,  he  managed  to  delay 
the  parliamentary  attempt  to  muzzle  the  Press,  and  gained  a 
great  victory  for  the  cause  of  freedom. 

From  being  actively  disliked  the  Reporters  gradually  grew 
to  be  tolerated,  and  finally  courted  and  cultivated.  Members 
who  had  formerly  objected  to  the  publication  of  their  speeches 
soon  began  to  complain  with  equal  bitterness  that  they  were 
not  reported  at  all.  Others,  again,  grumbled  at  being  mis- 
reported,  words  being  attributed  to  them  for  which  they 
altogether  declined  to  be  responsible.  Wedderburn,  after- 
wards Lord  Loughborough,  complained,  in  1771,  that  the 
reporting  in  the  Commons  was  shocking.  Of  the  report  of 
one  speech  which  he  was  supposed  to  have  delivered  he  said 
that  "  to  be  sure,  there  are  in  that  report  a  few  things  which 
I  did  say,  but  many  things  which  I  am  glad  I  did  not  say, 
and  some  things  which  I  wish  I  could  have  said."  ^  Burke's 
famous  sentiment  that  "  Virtue  docs  not  depend  on  climates 
or  degrees "  was  first  printed  as  "  on  climaxes  and  trees^ 
When  Sheridan  made  his  great  speech  at  the  trial  of 
Warren  Hastings,  the  "Morning  Chronicle"  reported  him  as 
having  said  that  "  nothing  equal  in  criminality  was  to  be 
traced  either  in  ancient  or  modern  history,  in  the  correct 
periods  of  Tacitus,  or  the  luminous  page  of  Gibbon."  -  The 
historian  was  delighted  at  being  mentioned  in  so  flattering 
a  fashion  ;  "  I  could  not  hear  without  emotion  the  personal 
compliment,"  he  says  in  his  autobiography.  But  when 
Sheridan  was  asked  how  he  came  to  apply  the  epithet 
"luminous"  to  Gibbon,  "I  said  Vo-luminous  I "  he  replied 
shortly.^ 

Cobbett,    too,  suffered    much    from    bad  reporting,    and 

•  Campbell's  "  Lives  of  the  Chancellors,"  vol.  vi.  p.  93. 

2  "Morning  Chronicle,"  June  14,  1788. 

3  Samuel  Rogers'  "  Recollections,"  p.  67. 


PARLIAMENTARY   REPORTING  283 

when  he  ventured  to  find  fault,  the  Press  retaliated  by 
ceasing  to  report  him  at  all.  Spring-Rice  (afterwards  Lord 
Monteagle)  was  punished  in  a  similar  fashion  for  two  years, 
because  he  had  said  something  deprecatory  of  journalism. 
Another  member  complained  that  his  speeches  had  been 
published  in  the  papers  with  certain  of  the  sentences  printed 
in  italics.  "  I  never  spoke  in  italics  in  my  life !  "  he  exclaimed 
indignantly. 

O'Connell  in  1833  accused  a  reporter  of  wilfully  pervert- 
ing one  of  his  speeches.  By  way  of  excuse  the  Pressman 
stated  that  on  his  way  home  from  the  House  he  had  been 
caught  in  a  shower  of  rain,  which  had  washed  out  many  of 
his  notes.  This  explanation  did  not  satisfy  the  Liberator, 
who  justly  remarked  that  it  must  surely  have  been  an  extra- 
ordinary shower  which  could  not  only  wash  out  one  speech, 
but  actually  wash  in  another  !  ^  He  was  never  a  favourite  of 
the  Press,  and  they  finally  decided  to  discontinue  the  report 
of  his  speeches.  As  a  means  of  revenge,  he  determined  to 
prevent  all  newspaper  reporting,  and  for  some  time  succeeded 
in  doing  so.  With  this  end  in  view,  he  made  a  practice  of 
"  espying  strangers  "  on  every  opportunity,  and  each  time  he 
did  so  the  galleries  had  to  be  cleared.  The  withdrawal  of 
the  reporters  had  a  natural  but  most  depressing  effect  upon 
the  oratory  of  Parliament.  "  For  the  first  time  within  my 
recollection,"  says  Grant,  "  members  kept  their  word  when, 
on  commencing  their  orations,  they  promised  not  to  trespass 
at  any  length  on  the  patience  of  the  House."  ^ 

The  "  Diary,"  published  in  1769,  and  edited  by  William 
Woodfall,  was  the  first  paper  to  give  accounts  of  the  parlia- 
mentary debates  on  the  day  after  they  had  taken  place. 
Woodfall  had  a  marvellous  memory,  and  would  sit  in  the 
gallery  or  stand  at  the  bar  of  either  House  for  hours,  without 
taking  a  note  of  any  kind,  and  afterwards  reproduce  the 
speeches  verbatim.  He  seemed  not  to  require  rest  or  refresh- 
ment, but  occasionally  fortified  himself  with  a  hard-boiled 

'  O'Connell's  *'  Recollections  and  Experiences,"  vol.  i.  p.  220. 
2  Grant's  "  Recollections,"  p.  48. 


284  THE   MOTHER   OF   PARLIAMENTS 

egg.  His  efforts  were,  however,  spasmodic  and  irregular,  and 
it  was  not  until  1802,  when  William  Cobbett  started  the 
"  Weekly  Political  Register,"  which  afterwards  published  the 
debates  as  supplements  under  the  title  of  "  Cobbett's  Parlia- 
mentary Debates,"  that  the  system  of  providing  regular 
reports  of  the  proceedings  was  inaugurated.  In  1809  the 
publication  of  the  "Weekly  Political  Register"  was  transferred 
to  T.  C.  Hansard,  whose  name  has  been  so  long  and  honour- 
ably connected  with  parliamentary  reporting  that  it  is  still 
used  colloquially  to  describe  the  official  volumes. 

For  over  fifty  years  Hansard  carried  on  the  publication  of 
debates  as  a  private  speculation,  by  which  time  the  Govern- 
ment had  realised  the  useful  nature  of  his  labours,  and 
assisted  him  by  subscribing  for  a  certain  number  of  sets  of 
the  reports  for  public  distribution.  In  1877  a  Treasury  grant 
was  made  to  enable  him  to  continue  the  good  work  with 
greater  fullness  and  facility,  and  twelve  years  later  he  sold 
his  rights  to  a  syndicate.  This  new  venture  proved  anything 
but  a  financial  success,  and  the  publication  of  the  "  Parlia- 
mentary Debates,"  as  they  are  now  called,  was  then  under- 
taken by  the  official  Government  printers,  the  reports  being 
composed  from  notes  furnished  by  the  staff  of  the  "  Times." 

It  was  not  until  1909  that  the  present  system  was  insti- 
tuted, and  both  Houses,  while  leaving  the  printing  of  debates 
in  the  hands  of  the  King's  Printer,  provided  themselves  with 
a  regular  staff  of  reporters,  who  were  their  own  officials  and 
unconnected  with  any  company  or  newspaper. 

Up  to  the  time  of  the  Fire,  reporters  in  the  Commons 
always  sat  in  the  back  row  of  the  Strangers'  Gallery,  to 
which  they  obtained  admission  by  a  sessional  payment  of 
three  guineas.  In  183 1,  the  House  of  Lords  provided 
separate  accommodation  for  the  Press,  and  in  the  temporary 
House  which  was  constructed  in  1834  a  special  gallery  was 
reserved  for  their  use. 

The  Press  Gallery  in  the  present  House  of  Commons 
holds  about  sixty  persons,  and  is  situated  exactly  behind 
and  above  the  Speaker's  chair.     Reporters  of  the  newspapers 


WILLIAM   WOODFALL 

KKOM     I  HE    lAINlIM,    BV  THOMAS   BEACH    I.V    THE   NATIONAL   PORTRAIT   GALLERY 


PARLIAMENTARY   REPORTING  285 

in  the  Lords  occupy  a  similar  position,  but  as  the  acoustic 
properties  of  the  Upper  Chamber  are  notoriously  bad,  a 
special  arrangement  has  existed  for  some  years,  whereby  the 
official  reporter  of  the  "  Parliamentary  Debates  "  is  given  a 
seat  on  the  floor  of  the  House  immediately  behind  the  Clerks 
at  the  Table. 

A  hundred  years  ago  the  path  of  the  Pressman  was  not 
so  smooth  as  it  is  to-day.  Up  to  1840  the  publication  of 
debates  was  undertaken  at  the  risk  of  the  printer.  In  that 
year  Hansard  published  the  report  of  a  Select  Committee  of 
the  House  of  Commons,  in  which  a  certain  book  was  referred 
to  as  "  disgusting  and  obscene."  Stockdale,  the  publisher  of 
the  book  in  question,  took  the  matter  into  Court  and  obtained 
£600  damages  for  libel.  The  House  retorted  by  summoning 
to  the  bar  the  Sheriffs  of  Middlesex  who  had  tried  the  case, 
and  reprimanded  them  for  their  contempt  of  its  privileges. 
After  this  Lord  John  Russell  took  the  first  opportunity  of 
introducing  a  Bill  rendering  all  publication  of  speeches  and 
documents,  if  by  the  authority  of  Parliament,  matters  of 
privilege  not  amenable  to  ordinary  law.  A  member  of 
Parliament  cannot,  however,  claim  privilege  for  publishing 
or  circulating  the  report  of  any  libellous  speech  made  in  the 
House,  though  he  is,  of  course,  protected  there  for  anything 
he  may  say.  The  suggestion  that  privilege  of  Parliament 
should  protect  members  from  being  proceeded  against  for 
writing  and  publishing  libellous  articles  was  discussed 
in  November,  1763,  and  finally  relinquished  by  a  large 
majority.^ 

The  subject  of  reporting  cannot  be  left  without  some  mention 
of  that  official  amateur  reporter  who  sits  upon  the  Treasury 
bench  and  prepares  his  nightly  precis  of  the  day's  parliamen- 
tary proceedings.  Amateur  reporters  there  have  always  been 
in  the  Commons  from  the  days  of  Sir  Symonds  D'Ewes  and 
Sir  Henry  Cavendish ^  to  the  present  time;  but  there  is  only 

•  Walpole's  "  Memoirs  of  the  Reign  of  George  III.,"  vol.  i.  p.  261. 
-  In  the  heyday  of  parliamentary  corruption,  when  a  critical  division 
was  impending,  Sir  Hercules  Langrishe  was  asked  whether  Sir  Henry 


286  THE   MOTHER   OF   PARLIAMENTS 

one  upon  the  floor  of  the  House  whose  duties  have  ever  been 
officially  recognised. 

In  accordance  with  a  custom  of  many  years  standing 
the  Leader  of  the  House  of  Commons  writes  a  nightly  letter 
to  the  sovereign,  whenever  the  House  is  sitting,  giving  a 
brief  rhnmi  of  the  debates.  This  letter,  often  composed 
somewhat  hastily  during  the  course  of  an  exciting  debate,  is 
at  once  sent  off  in  an  official  dispatch  box  to  His  Majesty,  and 
is  subsequently  filed  in  the  library  at  Buckingham  Palace.^ 
The  practice  dates  from  the  reign  of  George  III.,  who  required 
George  Grcnville,  then  Leader  of  the  House  of  Commons,  to 
provide  him  with  daily  reports  of  the  debates  relating  to  the 
contest  between  Parliament  and  John  Wilkes. 

The  sovereign  is  not  supposed  to  enter  the  Lower  House 
— Charles  I.  was  the  only  monarch  who  broke  this  rule — and 
thus,  in  days  before  debates  were  published  at  length  in  the 
papers,  the  Crown  had  no  means  of  ascertaining  the  doings  of 
the  Commons  save  through  the  medium  of  this  letter.  The 
need  for  this  one-sided  nightly  correspondence  no  longer 
exists,  but  the  custom  still  prevails,  and  adds  one  more  to  the 
already  multifarious  duties  of  the  Leader  of  the  House,  though 
nowadays  it  is  occasionally  delegated  to  some  other  Minister, 
or  to  one  of  the  Whips. 

To-day  Press  and  Parliament  are  mutually  dependent.  A 
great  newspaper  proprietor  who  was  recently  asked  which  of 
the  two  he  considered  to  be  the  most  powerful,  found 
some  difficulty  in  replying.  "  The  Press  is  the  voice  without 
which  Parliament  could  not  speak,"  he  said.  "On  the  other 
hand,  Parliament  is  the  law-making  machine  without  which 
the  Press  could  not  act."  The  question  of  their  relative  power 
and  importance    must    be   left  to  the  decision  of  individual 

Cavendish  had  as  usual  been  taking  notes.  "  He  has  been  taking  either 
notes  or  money,"  he  replied,  "  I  don't  know  which." 

'  On  one  occasion,  in  the  hurry  of  dispatching  his  nightly  missive, 
Lord  Randolph  Churchill  accidentally  enclosed  a  quantity  of  tobacco  in 
the  box  which  he  forwarded  to  Queen  Victoria,  much  to  Her  Majesty's 
amusement. 


PARLIAMENTARY   REPORTING  287 

judgment  and  taste.  "  Give  me  but  the  liberty  of  the  Press," 
said  Sheridan  in  18 10,  in  answer  to  the  Premier,  Spencer 
Perceval,  "  and  I  will  give  the  Minister  a  venal  House  of 
Peers,  I  will  give  him  a  corrupt  and  servile  House  of  Commons, 
I  will  give  him  the  full  swing  of  the  patronage  of  office,  I  will 
give  him  the  whole  host  of  ministerial  influences,  I  will  give 
him  all  the  power  that  place  can  confer  upon  him  to  purchase 
submission  and  overawe  resistance  ;  and  yet,  armed  with  the 
liberty  of  the  Press,  I  will  go  forth  to  meet  him  undismayed  ; 
I  will  attack  the  mighty  fabric  he  has  reared  with  that 
mightier  engine  ;  I  will  shake  down  from  its  height  corruption, 
and  lay  it  beneath  the  ruins  of  the  abuses  it  was  meant  to 
shelter ! "  ^ 

*  Hansard's  "  Debates,"  ist  series,  vol.  xv. 


SOURCES    AND    REFERENCES 


Adams,  W.  H.  D.,  English  Party  Leaders  and  Parties.     1878. 

Alison,  Sir  A.,  Life  of  Lord  Castlercagh.     1861. 

Anson,  Sir  \V.  R.,  Law  and  Custom  of  the  Constitution.     1897. 

Arcana  Parliamentaria,  or  Precedents  concerning  Parliament,  by  R.  C. 

of  the  Middle  Temple,  Esq.     1685. 
Ashley,  Hon.  A.  E.,  Life  of  Lord  Palmerston.     1876. 
Ashwell,  A.,  Life  of  Bishop  Samuel  Wilberforce.     1880. 
Allay,  J.  B.,  The  \'ictorian  Chancellors.     1908. 

Bacon,  N.,  Historical  Discourse  of  the  Laws  and  Government  of  England. 

1760. 
Bagehot,  W.,  Biographical  Studies.     1881. 
P.agehot,  W.,  The  English  Constitution.     1S72. 
Piagehot,  W.,  Litcrar>'  Studies.     1879. 
Barnes,  T.,  Parliamcnt.iry  Portraits.     1815. 
Barrington,  Sir  J.,  Historic  Memoirs  of  Ireland.     1833. 
Barringlon,  Sir  J.,  Personal  Sketches  of  His  Own  Times.     1827, 
Barrington,  Sir  J.,  The  Rise  and  Fall  of  the  Irish  Nation.     1833. 
Barrow,  J.  H.,  The  Mirror  of  Parliament.     1828-41. 
Barry,  Rev.  A.,  Life  and  Works  of  Sir  Charles  Barry.     1867. 
Bcaconsfield,  Lord,  Life  of  Lord  George  Bentinck.     1852. 
Bell,  J.  B.,  Biographical  Sketches.     180S. 
Bell,  R.,  Life  of  Canning.     1846. 
Bentham,  J.,  Works  of.     1843. 

Berkeley,  Hon.  G.,  My  Life  and  Recollections.     1866. 
Berry,  Mary,  Extracts  of  the  Journals  and  Correspondence  of  (edited  by 

Lady  T.  Lewis).     1865. 
Black  Book,  The.     1820. 

Blackie,  J.  S.,  Essays  on  Subjects  of  Moral  and  Social  Interest,     1890. 
Blackstone,  Sir  W.,  Commentaries  (adapted  by  R.  M.  Kerr).     1844. 
Blauvelt,  M.  T.,  The  Development  of  Cabinet  Government  in  England. 

1902. 
Boswell,  J.,  Life  of  Dr.  Johnson  (Croker's  Edition).     1847. 
Bourke,  Hon.  R.,  Parliamentary  Precedents.     1857. 
Boyd,  Mark,  Reminiscences  of  Fifty  Years.     1871. 

2SS 


SOURCES   AND   REFERENCES  289 

Boyd,  M.,  Social  Gleanings.     1875. 

Brayley,  E.  W.,  and  Britton,  J.,  History  of  the  Ancient  Palace  and  late 

Houses  of  Parliament.     1836. 
Bright,  John,  Speeches  (edited  by  J.  Rogers).     1879. 
Brougham,  Lord,  Life  and  Times  of.     1871. 
Brougham,  Lord,   Historical   Sketches   of  Statesmen   in   the   Time   of 

George  IIL     1855. 
Brown,  Tom,  Amusements.     1700. 
Brydges,  Sir  E.,  Autobiography  of.     1834. 
Brydges,  Sir  E.,  Memories  of  the  Peers  of  England.     1802. 
Bucher,  L.,  Der  Parliamentismus  wie  er  ist.     1855. 
Buckingham,  Duke  of,  Memoirs  of  the  Court  of  George  IV.     1859. 
Burke,  E.,  Works  and  Correspondence.     1852. 
Burke,  E.,  Correspondence  of.     1844. 
Burke,  P.,  Life  of  Edmund  Burke.     1853. 
Burnet,  Bishop,  History  of  His  Own  Time.     1833  and  1838. 
Burton,  T.,  Diary  of.     1828. 
Butler,  C,  Reminiscences.     1S22. 
Buxton,  Sir  T.  F.,  Memoirs.     1848. 
Byron,  Lord,  Letters  of.     1886. 

Campbell,  Lord,  Lives  of  the  Chancellors.     1846-69. 

Carlyle,  T.,  Letters  and  Speeches  of  Cromwell.     1845. 

Castlereagh,  Lord,  Memoirs  and  Correspondence.     1848-53. 

Charlemont,  Lord,  Memoirs  (edited  by  F.  Hardy).     181 2. 

Charley,  Sir  W.  T.,  The  Crusade  against  the  Constitution.     1895. 

Chesterfield,  Lord,  Letters.     1893. 

Chesterfield,  Lord,  Letters  to  His  Son.     1901. 

Christie,  W.  D.,  Life  of  Lord  Shaftesbury.     1891. 

Churchill,  Rt.-Hon.  \V.  S.,  Lord  Randolph  Churchill.     1907. 

Clarendon,  Lord,  History  of  the  Rebellion.     1826. 

Clarendon,  Lord,  Life  of.     1827. 

Cobbett,  W.,  Parliamentary  History. 

Cobbett,  W.,  Annual  and  Weekly  Registers. 

Cobden,  R.,  Speeches.     1870. 

Cobden,  R.,  Letters  (edited  by  Sir  E.  W.  Watkin).     1891. 

Cockburn,  Lord,  Life  of  Jeffrey.     1852. 

Coke,  Sir  E.,  The  Fourth  Part  of  the  Institutes  of  the  Laws  of  England. 

1648. 
Colchester,  Lord,  Diary  and  Correspondence.     1861. 
Collective  Wisdom,  The  :  Sights  in  St.  Stephen's.     1824. 
Cooke,  G.  W.,  History  of  Party.     1836. 

Cooke,  E.  W.  R.,  Four  Years  in  Parliament  with  Hard  Labour.     1890. 
Cornwallis,  Lord,  Correspondence.     1859. 

Courtney,  J.,  Characteristic  Studies  of  Distinguished  Speakers.     1808. 
Courtney,  L.,  The  Working  Constitution  of  the  United  Kingdom.     1901. 

U 


290  THE   MOTHER   OF  PARLIAMENTS 

Coxe,  Archdeacon  W.,  Memoirs  of  Lord  Walpole.     1S20. 

Coxe,  W.,  Memoirs  of  Sir  Robert  Walpole.     1798. 

Coxe,  W.,  The  Pelham  Administration.     1829. 

Cracroft,  B.,  Essays,  Pohtical  and  Miscellaneous.     1868. 

Creasy,  Sir    E.   S.,   Rise  and  Progress   of  the   English   Constitution. 

1853-62. 
Croker,  Rt.  Hon.  J.  W.,  The  Croker  Papers.     1884. 
Curran,  J.  P.,  Sketches  of  the  Irish  Bar.     1S55. 

Dalling,  Lord,  Historical  Characters.     1868. 

Dalling,  Lord,  Life  of  Palmerston.     1874. 

D'Arblay,  Madame,  Diary  and  Letters.     1846. 

Daunt,  W.,  Recollections  of  Daniel  O'Connell.     1848. 

Delany,  Mrs.,  Autobioj^'raphy.     1861. 

Dcnison,  J.  E.,  Notes  from  my  Journal  when  Speaker  of  the  House  of 

Commons.     1900. 
D'Ewes,  Sir  S.,  Autobiography  and  Correspondence.     1845. 
D'Ewes,  Sir  S.,  The  Journal  of  all  the  Parliament  during  the  Reign  of 

Queen  Elizabeth.     16S2. 
Disraeli,  B.,  The  Letters  of  Runnymede.     1836. 
D'Israeli,  I.,  Curiosities  of  Literature.     1858. 

D'Israeli,  I.,  Commentary  on  the  Life  and  Death  of  Charles  I.     1S51. 
Diurnall  Occurrences,  or  Daily  Proceedings  of  this  Great  and  Happy 

Parliament.     164 1. 
Dodington,  G.  B.,  Diary.     182S. 
Doyle,  Sir  F.,  Reminiscences.     1886. 
Duncombc,  T.  H.,  Life  of  T.  S.  Duncombc.     1868. 
Dundonald,  Lord,  Autobiography,     i860. 

Edgeworlh,  M.,  Life  and  Letters.     1894, 

Edgeworth,  R.  L.,  Memoirs.     1844. 

Eldon,  Lord,  Life  of  Lord  Chancellor  Eldon.     1827. 

Eldon,  Lord,  Life  of  (edited  by  H.  Twiss).     1844. 

Elections,  Determination  of  the  House  of  Commons  concerning.     1753. 

EUesmerc,  Lord,  Observations  concerning  the  Office  of  Lord  Chancellor. 

1651. 
Ellis,   C.   T.,    Practical   Remarks  and   Precedents    of    Proceedings   in 

Parliament.     1S02. 
Elsynge,  H.  E.,  Ancient  Method  and  Manner  of  Holding  Parliaments. 

177S. 
Elsynge,  H.  E.,  Notes  of  the  Debates  in  the  House  of  Lords  (Camden 

Society).     1870-79. 
Emerson,  R.  W.,  English  Traits.     1856. 

Escott,  T.  H.  S.,  Gentlemen  of  the  House  of  Commons.     1902. 
Evelyn,  John,  Diary.     1852. 
Ewald,  A.  C,  Biography  of  Walpole.     1S78. 


SOURCES   AND   REFERENCES  291 

First  Dialogue  between  a  Doctor  of  Divinity  and  a  Student  in  the  Laws 

of  England,  The.     1539. 
Francis,  G.  H.,  Orators  of  the  Age.     1847. 
Francis,  Sir  P.,  Memoirs.     1867. 
Franqueville,   F.  de,  Le  Gouvernement  et  le  Parlement  britanniques. 

1887. 
Freeman,  E.  A.,  Growth  of  the  English  Constitution.     1872. 
Freeman,  E.  A.,  Historical  Essays.     1892. 
Forster,  J.,  The  Debates  on  the  Grand  Remonstrance,     i860. 
Forster,  J.,  The  Arrest  of  the  Five  Members  by  Charles  I.     1S60. 
Forster,  J.,  Sir  John  Eliot.     1864. 

Forster,  J.,  Historical  and  Biographical  Essays.     1858. 
Forster,  J.,  Statesmen  of  the  Commonwealth.     1840. 
Fox,  C.  J.,  History  of  the  Political  Life  and  Public  Services  of.     1782. 
Fuller,   T.,  The  Sovereign's    Prerogative   and   the    Subject's   Privilege. 

1680. 

Gardiner,  S.  R.,  Debates  in  the  House  of  Commons  in  1625  (Camden 

Society).     1873. 
Gibbon,  E.,  Autobiographies.     1896. 

Gladstone,  Rt.-Hon.  W.  E.,  Gleanings  of  Past  Years.     1879. 
Gleig,  G.  R.,  Life  of  Wellington,     i860. 
Gneist,  R.,  History  of  the  English  Constitution.     1886. 
Grafton,  R.,  Chronicles  of  England.     1809. 

Grant,  J.,  Random  Recollections  of  the  House  of  Commons.     1836. 
Grant,  J.,  The  British  Senate.     1838. 

Grant,  J.,  Random  Recollections  of  the  House  of  Lords.     1836. 
Granville,  Lady,  Letters  (edited  by  Hon.  F.  L.  Gower).     1894. 
Grattan,  H.,  Life  and  Times.     1839-46. 
Grenville  Papers,  The.     1852. 
Greville  Memoirs,  The.    1888. 

Grey,  A.,  Debates  in  the  House  of  Commons  from  1667  to  1694. 
Grey,  C,  Life  and  Opinions  of  Lord  Grey.     1861. 
Grey,  Lord,  Parliamentary  Government.     1864. 
Grifiith-Boscawen,  A.  S.  T.,  Fourteen  Years  in  Parliament.     1907. 
Guizot,  F.  P.  G.,  Memoirs  of  Peel.     1856. 
Guizot,  F.  P.  G.,  Embassy  to  the  Court  of  St.  James's.     1862. 
Gurdon,  T.,  History  of  Parliament.     1731. 

Hale,   Lord   Chief  Justice,  The  Jurisdiction  of  the   Lords'   House  of 

Parliament.     1796. 
Hales,    Judge,   The   Original    Institution,    Power    and    Jurisdiction    of 

Parliaments.     1707. 
Hallam,  H.,  Constitutional  History.     1854. 
Halliwell,  J.  O.,  Autobiography  and  Correspondence  of  Sir  Symonds 

D'Ewes.     1845. 


292  THE   MOTHER   OF   PARLIAMENTS 

Hamilton,  W.  G.,  Parliamentary  Logick.     1808. 

Hansard,  T.  C,  Parliamentary  Debates. 

Hardwicke,  Lord,  The  Hardwicke  Papers.     1778. 

Hardy,  Sir  T.  D.,  Modus  Tenendi  Parliamentum.     1846. 

Harford,  J.  S.,  Recollections  of  William  Wilbcrforce.     1864. 

Harris,  G.,  Life  of  Lord  Chancellor  Hardwicke.     1847. 

Hawkins,  J.  W.,  and  Smith,  J.  T.,  Antiquities  of  the  City  of  Westminster. 

1807-9. 
Hawkins,  Sir  J.,  The  Works  and  Life  of  Samuel  Johnson.     17S7. 
Hawkins,  L.  M.,  Memoirs,  Anecdotes,  Facts,  and  Opinions.     1824. 
Hawkins,  L.  M.,  Biographical  Sketches.     1822. 
Hayward,  A.,  Biographical  and  Critical  Essays.     1874. 
Hayward,  A.,  Correspondence  (edited  by  H.  E.  Carlisle).     1886. 
Hervey,  Lord,  Memoirs  of  George  II.     184S. 
Hitchman,  F.,  Public  Life  of  Lord  Beaconsfield.     1879. 
Hocy,  J.  C,  Speeches  of  Lord  Plunket.     1863. 
Holcroft,  T.,  Memoirs.     1852. 

Holland,  Lord,  Memoirs  of  the  Whig  Party.     1S52-54. 
Horner,  F.  H.,  Memoirs  and  Correspondence.     1843. 
House  of  Lords,  History  and  Proceedings  of.     1660-1742. 
Huish,  R.,  Memoirs  of  O'Connell.     1836. 
Hume,  D.,  History  of  England.     1854-55. 
Hutton,  R.  H.,  Studies  in  Parliament.     1866. 

Ilbert,  Sir  C,  Legislative  Methods  and  Forms.     1901. 
Irving,  J.,  Annals  of  Our  Time.     1871-89. 

Jennings,  G.,  Anecdotal  History  of  the  English  Parliament.     1899. 
Jesse,  J.  H.,  George  Selvv^m  and  His  Contemporaries.     1S43-44. 
Johnson,  S.,  Debates  in  Parliament.     17S7. 

King,  E.,  An  Essay  on  the  English  Constitution.     1767. 
King,  Dr.  W.,  Anecdotes  of  His  Own  Time.     1819. 
Knight,  C,  London.     1842. 

Lccky,  W.  E.  H.,  Leaders  of  Public  Opinion  in  Ireland.     1903. 

Le  Marchant,  Sir  D.,  Memoirs  of  Viscount  Althorp.     1876. 

Lewis,  Sir  G.  C,  Essay  on  the  Influence  of  Authority  in  Matters  of 

Opinion.     1859. 
Lister,  T.  II.,  Life  and  Administration  of  Clarendon.    1838. 
Low,  S.,  The  Governance  of  England.     1904. 

Lowell,  A.  L.,  Governments  and  Parties  in  Continental  Europe.     1896. 
Lucy,  Sir  H.  W.,  Memories  of  Eight  Parliaments.     1908. 
Luttrell,  N.,  A  Brief  Relation  of  State  Affairs  from  1678  to  1714.     1837. 
Lytton,  Lord,  St.  Stephen's  and  the  New  Timon.     i860. 
L>  tlon,  Lord,  Speeches,  etc.     1S74. 


SOURCES  AND   REFERENCES  293 

Macaulay,  T.  B.,  Essays,     i860. 

Macaulay,  T.  B.,  History  of  England.     1852-61. 

MacCullagh,  W.  T.,  Memoirs  of  Richard  L.  Sheil.     1855. 

MacDonagh,  M.,  The  Book  of  Parliament.     1897. 

MacDonagh,    M.,  Parliament :    its   Romance,   its  Comedy,  its  Pathos. 

1902. 
McCarthy,  J.  H.,  History  of  Our  Own  Times. 
McGee,  T.,  O'Connell  and  His  Friends.     1845. 
Mackintosh,  Sir  J.,  Memories  of  the  Life  of.     1836. 
Maddyn,  D.  O.,  Chiefs  of  Parties.     1859. 
Malmcsbury,  Lord,  The  Malmesbury  Correspondence.     1870. 
Malmesbury,  Lord,  Memoirs  of  an  Ex-Minister.     1884. 
Malmesbury,  Lord,  Political  Diaries  and  Correspondence.     1844. 
Martin,  Sir  T.,  Life  of  the  Prince  Consort.     1875-S0. 
Martin,  Sir  T.,  Life  of  Lord  Lyndhurst.     1884. 
Martineau,  H.,  Biographical  Studies.     1869. 
Martincau,  H.,  History  of  the  Peace.     1877. 
Marvell,  A.,  Works.     1875. 
Marvell,  A.,  Flagellum  Parliamentarium.     1827. 
Massey,  W.  N.,  History  of  England  during  the  Reign  of  George  IIL 

1855. 
Maty,  M.,  Memoirs  of  Lord  Chesterfield.     1777. 
May,  Sir  T.  E.,  Constitutional  History.     1866. 
May,  Sir  T.  E.,  Law,  Privileges,  Proceedings,  and  Usages  of  Parliament, 

1844-96. 
May,  T.,  History  of  the  Long  Parliament.     18 12. 

May,  T.,  A  Breviary  of  the  History  of  the  Parliament  of  England.     1680. 
Men  and   Manners   in   Parliament,  By  the   Member  for  the   Chiltern 

Hundreds.     1874. 
Mill,  J.  S.,  Representative  Government.     1861. 
Mirabeau,  H.de, ''  Rdglements  observes  dans  la  Chambre  des  Communes 

pour  ddbattre  les  matiires  et  pour  voter."     1789. 
Molesworth,  W.  N.,  History  of  the  Reform  Bill.     1865. 
Montesquieu,  Works  of.     1777. 
Moore,  T.,  Life  of  Byron.     1838. 
Moore,  T.,  Life  of  Sheridan.     1825. 
Moore,  T.,  Memoirs.     1856. 

Moritz,  C.  P.,  Travels  (edited  by  J.  Pinkerton).     1808. 
Morley,  Rt.-Hon.  J.,  Walpole.     1889. 
Morley,  Rt.-Hon.  J.,  Burke.     1902. 
Morley,  Rt.-Hon.  J.,  Life  of  Gladstone.     1903. 

Mountmorres,  Lord,  The  History  of  the  Irish  Parliament  (1634-66).    1792. 
Mowbray,  Sir  John,  Seventy  Years  at  Westminster.     1900. 
Mozley,  Rev.  T.,  Reminiscences.     1882-85. 

Napier,  Macvey,  Correspondence  of.     1879. 


294  THE   MOTHER   OF   PARLIAMENTS 

Naunton,  Sir  R.,  Fragmenta  Regalia.     1870. 

Nicolas,   Sir    Nicolas    Harris,   Proceedings  of   the    Privy  Council    of 

England.     1834. 
"Noorthouck,  J.,  A  New  History  of  London.     1763. 

North,  Lord,  A  Narrative  of  Some  Passages  relating  to  the  Long  Parlia- 
ment.    1670. 

North,  Lord,  Correspondence  with  George  II L     1867. 

North,  R.,  Lives  of  the  Norths.     1826. 

Northcote,  Sir  J.,  Notebook.     1877. 

Observations,  Rules,  and  Orders  collected  out  of  Divers  Journals  of  the 

House  of  Commons.     17 17. 
O'Connell,  John,  Recollections  and  Experiences.     1849. 
O'Connor,  T.  P.,  Gladstone's  House  of  Commons.     1885. 
O'Flanagan,   J.   R.,  Annals,  Anecdotes,  Traits,  and  Traditions  of  the 

Irish  Parliaments.     1S79. 
O'Flanagan,  J.  R.,  Lives  of  the  Irish  Chancellors.     1870. 
Oldfield,  T.  H.  B.,  History  of  the  House  of  Commons.     1816. 
Oldfield,  T.  H.  B.,  Representative  Histor)-  of  Great  Britain  and  Ireland. 

1816. 
Onslow,  Rt.-Hon.  A.,  The  Onslow  Papers  (History  MSS.  Commission, 

vol.  xiv.  app.  ix.).     1895. 
Orders,    Proceedings,    Punishments,   and    Privileges   of    the    Commons 

House  in  England.     1641.     Harleian  Miscellany,  vol.  v.  p.  258. 
Oslrogorski,  M.,  Democracy  and  its  Organisation  of  Political  Parties. 

1902. 

Palgrave,  Sir  R.  F.  D.,  The  House  of  Commons.     1869  and  1878. 
Palgrave,  Sir  R.  F.  D.,  The  Chairman's  Handbook.     1883. 
Palgrave,  Sir  R.  F.  D.,  Lectures  on  the  House  of  Commons.     1869. 
Paris,  M.,  English  History.     1S54. 
Parry,  C.  H.,  The  Parliaments  of  England.     1839. 
Paston  Letters,  The.     1896. 
'  Pearson,  J.,  Political  Dictionary.     1793. 
Peel,  Sir  R.,  Memoirs.     1856. 
Peel,  Sir  R.,  Opinions.     1850. 
Pellew,  Dean,  Life  of  Sidmouth.     1847. 
Pemberton,  T.,  Letter  to  Lord  Langdale  on  the  recent  proceedings  in 

the  House  of  Commons  on  the  subject  of  Privilege.     1837. 
Pepys,  S.,  Diary.     1848-49. 
Petyt,  G.,  Lex  Parliamentaria.     1690. 
Petyt,  W.,  Miscellanea  Parliamentaria.     1680. 
Petyt,  W.,  Jus  Parliamentarium.     1739. 
Phillips,  C,  Curran  and  His  Contemporaries.     1850. 
Pike,  L.  O.,  Constitutional  History  of  the  House  of  Lords.     1894. 
Pope,  A.,  Works  of.     1882. 


SOURCES  AND   REFERENCES  295 

Porritt,  E.,  The  Unreformed  House  of  Commons.     1903. 

Prior,  Sir  J.,  Life  of  Burke.     1826. 

Prior,  Sir  J.,  Life  of  Malone.     i860. 

Privilege  and  Practice  of  Parliaments  in  England,  The.     1680. 

Pryme,  G.,  Autobiographic  Recollections.     1870. 

Prynne,  W.,  A  Brief  Register  of  Parliamentary  Writs.     1664. 

Prynne,  W.,  Opening  of  the  Great  Seale  of  England.     1643. 

Raikes,  T.,  Journal.     1858. 

Raikes,  T.,   Popular  Sketch  of  the   Origin  and   Development  of  the 

English  Constitution.     185 1. 
Ralph,  T.,  The  Use  and  Abuse  of  Parliaments.     1744. 
Redlich,  J.,  The  Procedure  of  the  House  of  Commons.     1908. 
Reports   from   the   Select   Committees   on   Parliamentary  Debates,  on 

Parliamentary  Reporting,  on  the  Admission  of  Strangers,  on  the 

Houses   of    Parliament,   on   the   Office   of    Speaker,   and    on    the 

Establishment  of  the  House  of  Commons.     1907,  1879,  1888,  1837, 

1853,  1833. 
Reresby,  Sir  J,,  Memoirs.     1875. 
Ritchie,  J.  E.,  Modern  Statesmen.     1861. 

Robinson,  Sir  H.  C,  Diary,  Reminiscences,  and  Correspondence.     1869. 
Roebuck,  J.  A.,  History  of  the  Whig  Ministry  of  1830.     1852. 
Rogers,  J.  E.  T.,  Protests  of  the  Lords.     1875. 
Rogers,  Samuel,  Recollections  of  the  Table  Talk  of.     1859. 
Rolliad,  The.     1812. 

Romilly,  Sir  S.,  Memoirs  and  Correspondence.     1841. 
Roper,  W.,  Life  of  Sir  Thomas  More.     1822. 
Roscoe,  PL,  Eminent  British  Lawyers.     1830. 
Rose,  Right  Hon.  G.,  Diaries  and  Correspondence.     i86o. 
Rose,  G.,  Observations  Respecting  the  Public  Expenditure  and  Influence 

of  the  Crown.     18 10. 
Rosebery,  Lord,  Pitt.     1 891. 
Rushworth,  J.,  Historical  Collections.     1618-48. 
Russell,  G.  W.  E.,  Memoir  of  Gladstone.     1891. 
Russell,  G.  W.  E.,  Sir  Wilfrid  Lawson.     1909. 
Russell,  Lord,  Recollections.     1875. 
Russell,  Lord,  Life  of  Charles  James  Fox.     1866. 

Russell,  Lord  John,  Essays  and  Sketches  of  Life  and  Character.     1820. 
Russell,  Lord  John,  Essay  on  the  History  of  the  English  Government 

and  Constitution  from  the  Reign  of  Henry  VIL     1865. 

Sarcastic  Notices  of  the  Long  Parliament.     1863. 
Scobell,  H.,  Rules  and  Customs  of  the  House.     1692. 
Scobell,  H.,  Proceedings  in  the  House  of  Lords.     1657. 
Selden,  J.,  Discourse  touching  the  Office  of  the  Lord  Chancellors  of 
England.     181 1. 


296  THE  MOTHER   OF   PARLIAMENTS 

Selden,  J.,  Table  Talk.     1854. 

Seward,  W.,  Anecdotes  of  Some  Distinguished  Persons.     1798. 

Seward,  W.,  Biographiana.     I799- 

Sheil,  R.  L.,  Sketches  of  the  Irish  Bar.     1854-56. 

Sheil,  R.  L.,  Sketches,  Legal  and  Political.     1855. 

Sherbrooke,  Lord,  Speeches  on  Reform.     1867. 

Sheridan,  T.,  Discourse  on  the  Rise  and  Power  of  Parliaments.     1870. 

Sheridan,  T.,  Some  Revelations  in  Irish  History.     1870. 

Sheridan,  R.  B.  B.,  Speeches.     1847. 

Sidney,  A.,  Discourses  concerning  Government.     1750. 

Sidney,  A.,  Of  the  Use  and  Abuse  of  Parliaments.     1744. 

Sinclair,  Sir  J.,  Correspondence.     1831. 

Sketches    Personal   and    Political   in   the    Mouse   of  Commons   (By   a 

Silent  Member).     1871. 
Smith,  J.  C,  and  Wallace,  W.,  Life  of  Robert  Wallace.     1903. 
Smith,  P.,  and  Wright,  A.,  Parliament  Past  and  Present. 
Smith,  G.  B.,  History  of  the  Knglish  Parliament.     1892. 
Smith,  J.  T.,  and  Hawkins,  J.  S.,  Antiquities  of  the  City  of  Westminster. 

1807-9. 
Smith,  Rev.  S.,  Works.     1850. 
Somers,  Lord,  The  Manner  of  Holding  Parliaments  Prior  to  the  Reign 

of  (2uecn  Elizabeth.     (The  .Somers  Tracts.) 
Southey,  R.,  Life  of  Cromwell.     1844. 
Spalding,  T.  A.,  The  House  of  Lords.     1894. 
Stanhope,  Lord,  Life  of  Pitt.     1862. 
Stapleton,  E.  G.,  Canning  and  His  Times.     1831. 
.Stow,  J.,  A  Survey  of  London.     1842. 
Surtees,  W.  E.,  The  Lives  of  Lords  Stowcll  and  Eldon.     1S46. 


Taylor,  H.,  Origin  and  Growth  of  the  English  Constitution.     1889. 

Temple,  Sir  R.,  Life  in  Parliament,  1SS6-92.     1893. 

Temple,  Sir  R.,  The  House  of  Commons.     1899. 

Timbs,  J.,  Anecdote  Biography.     1S60. 

Timbs,  J.,  A  Century  of  Anecdote.     1864. 

Timbs,  J.,  London  and  Westminster.     1868. 

Timbs,  J.,  Curiosities  of  London.     1855. 

Todd,  A.,  Parliamentary  Government  in  England.     1S69. 

Torrens,  W.  McC,  Life  of  Sir  James  Gr.iham.     1863. 

Torrens,  W.  McC,  Life  of  Lord  Melbourne.     1878. 

Torrens,  W.  McC,  Reform  of  Procedure  in  Parliament.     1882. 

Torrens,  W.  McC,  Twenty  Years  in  Parliament.     1893. 

Townsend,  W.  C,  History  of  the  House  of  Commons,  1688-1832.     1844. 

Townshend,  IL,  Historical  Collections  of  the  Last  Four  Parliaments  of 

Queen  Elizabeth.     1680. 
Trevelyan,  G.  O.,  Life  of  Macaulay.     1877. 


SOURCES  AND  REFERENCES      297 

Voltaire,  A.  de,  Works.     1885. 

Walcott,  Rev.  M.,  Memorials  of  Westminster.     1851. 

Waldegrave,  Lord,  Memoirs.     1821. 

Wallace,  W.,  and  Smith,  J.  C,  Life  of  Robert  Wallace.     1903. 

Walpole,  H.,  Letters  (edited  by  P.  Cunningham).     1858. 

Walpole,  H.,  Letters  of  Sir  H.  Mann.     1833. 

Walpole,  H.,  Memoirs  of  the  Reign  of  George  IIL     1894. 

Walpole,  H.,  Letters  (edited  by  Mrs.  P.  Toynbee).     1904. 

"  Walpoliana."     1799. 

Walpole,  S.,  History  of  England.     1878-86. 

Warburton,  E.,  Memoirs  of  Horace  Walpole.     1851. 

Warwick,  Sir  P.,  Memoirs  of  the  Reign  of  Charles  L     170 1. 

White,  W.,  The  Inner  Life  of  the  House  of  Commons  (edited  by  J.  H. 

McCarthy).     1904. 
Whitelocke,  B.,  Memorials.     1732. 

Whitty,  E.  M.,  Friends  of  Bohemia  or  Phases  of  London  Life.     1857. 
Whitty,  E.  M.,  History  of  the  Session  of  1852-53.     1854. 
Whitty,  E.  M.,  Political  Portraits.     1854. 
Wilbcrforce,  W.,  Life  of     1839. 
Wilkins,  W.  W.,  Political  Ballads,     i860. 

Wilkinson,  K.,  The  Personal  Story  of  the  Upper  House.     1905. 
Wills,  S.  R.,  Life  of  Lord  Eldon.     1869. 
Willis,  B.,  Notitia  Parliamentaria.     1716. 
Wood,  A.,  Athenae  Oxonienses.     1820. 
Wraxall,  Sir  N.,  Memoirs.     1884. 
Wright,  A.,  and  Smith,  P.,  Parliament  Past  and  Present. 

Young,  A.,  Autobiography  (edited  by  M.  Betham-Edwards).     1898. 


INDEX 


Abbott,  Speaker,  124,  128,  133,  134, 

194,  252-53 
Abercrombie,  142 
Aberdeen,  Lord,  86,  239 
Abjuration,  Oath  of,  146,  147 
Adam,  duel,  200,  201 
Addington,  96   no^e^,  124,    133,    134, 

234,  258 
Addison,  his  first  speech,  212  and  note" ; 
ciied^  269  ;    the  "  Spectator,"    269  ; 
"  The  Whig  Examiner,"  278 
Address,  the,  debate  on,  157 
Adelaide,  Queen,  247 
Adelphi,  the,  148 
Admiralty,  Pitt  and  the,  93 
Affirmation,  56 ;  the  Bradlaugh  incident, 

147-151 
Albemarle,   Duke  of,   see  Torrington, 

Lord 
Alexander,  Emperor,  saying  of,  quoted, 

32  note"- 
Allred,  Prince,  97 
Alfred  the  Great,  councils  of,  81 
Alice's  coffee  house,  76 
Aliens  Bill,  1792...  148  note'^ 
Aliens,  disabilities,  55 
All-night  sittings,  228 
"AH  the  Talents,"  85,  133 
Allegiance,  Oath  of,  146 
Almack's,  193 
Althorp,  Lord,  the  fire  at  St.  Stephen's, 

71,  72  ;  punishment,  188  7tote'^ 
Alvanley,  Lord,   164  and  note'^  ;  duel, 

200 
American  War,  the,    12;  employment 

of  Indians  in,  204 
Amersham  market,  59  7iote'^ 
Ancaster,  family  of,  62  note ' 
Anne,  Queen,  Parliaments,  9 ;  Parties, 

14 ;    creation    of   peers,    33    note"  ; 

Cabinets,    83,    86;    death   of,   234; 

bills  quashed,  248  ;  women  partisans, 

269   ;      reporting     in      Parliament, 

278,  279 
Appeal,  Court  of,  no 


Appeal,  Lords  of,  24,  25 

Appellate  Jurisdiction,  Act  of  1876.., 25 

Apsley,  Sir  Allen,  192 

Arcot,  Nabob  of,  41 

Argyle,  Duke  of,  95  note  * 

Arrest,  exemption  from,  174 

Arthur's,  193 

Arundel,  Earl  of,  tiial,  63 

Ascension  Day,  227 

Ascot,  258 

Ash  Wednesday,  227 

Ashby,  case  of,  182 

Ashley,  Lord,  See  Shaftesbury 

Ashtown,  Lord,  24  note"^ 

Askew,  Anne,  107  note^ 

Atheists  and  the  oath,  147 

Atterbury,    Bishop   of  Rochester,   his 

reply  to  Lord  Coningsby,  23,  24 
Auditor  General,  232 
Audley,  Thomas,  Lord  Keeper,  106 
Anla  Regis,  the  107 
Aylesbury,  constables  of,  182 


Bacon,    Francis,  'trial,  63,  107,  108 ; 

"Collection    of    Apothegms,"    114 

and  note- ;  quoted  158;    mentioned, 

106,  205 
Bacon,    Nathaniel,    "Historical    Dis- 
courses," 8 
Bacon,  Nicholas,  106 
Bagehot,  Walter,  quoted,  83,  95,  114. 

222  note^ 
Balaam,  reference  to,  23,24,  24  7iote^ 
Baldwin,     printer     of    "  St.     James's 

Chronicle,"  178 
Balfour,  Rt.  Hon.  A.  J.,  168  ;   opinion 

of  a  member  of  Parliament's  position, 

51  ;  premiership,  90 
Bankrupts,  election  of,  55,  56 
Barnes,  on  lawyers,  quoted,  210  note'^ 
Baronage,      the,       composition      and 

antiquity  of,  21,  22 
Barons  in  Council,  4;  summoned  by 

Henry  H.,  64 


300 


THE   MOTHER    OF   PARLIAMENTS 


Barre,  Colonel,  31,  94,  199 

Barry,  Sir  Charles,  design  for  Houses 
of  Parliament,  72,  73,  73  noie^ 

Bathurst,  Bragge,  258  note^ 

Beckett,  St,  Thumas  a,  104 

Beefeaters,  the,  duties,  135,  136 

Bellamy,  John,  78 

Bellamy's  kitchen,  76-80 

13ellingham,  merchant,  266 

"  Benefit  of  Clergy,"  173,  174 

Benson,  sale  of  "  protections,"  175 

Benlham,  Jeremy,  guoteJ,  26S 

Berkeley,  Grantley,  272,  273 

Berkshire,  Earl  of,  191 

Bidmead,  177 

Big  Ben,  73  and  note" 

Biggar,  164;  saying  of,  quoted,  50; 
sjieeches,  207  ,  "spying  strangers," 
264,  265 

I'illingsgate,  164 

Bills,  classification,  242  ;  introduction 
of  the  bill,  243,  244  ;  1st  and  2nd 
reading,  244  ;  Committee  stage,  244, 
245  ;  Report  stage  and  3rd  reading, 
245  ;  reception  in  the  Lords,  246  ; 
Royal  xssent,  246  and  note  ^,  247 

Birch,  Colonel,  III  note^ 

Bishops,  attendance  on  the  Kings,  20 ; 
introduction  to  the  House  of  Lords, 

"  Black  Book  "  of  Edward  IIL,  3 

lUackfriars,  Priory  Church,  67 

Black  Ro<l,  duties,  75,  137,  140,  143, 
IS'.  >53.  '54.  211,212,247;  salary, 
136,  137 

Blackstonc,  quoted,  39,  109 

Boilmin,  49  note'- 

Bolingbrokc,  on  the  creation  of  peers, 
33  note-  ;  on  leaders,  92  ;  style,  203  ; 
on  clo(iuence,  214  note* 

Bolton,  Duke  of,  84,  85 

Boneham,  59 

Boswell,  280;  "Dr.  Johnson,"  158 
fiote^ 

Bolhmar,  87 

Bourchier,  Sir  Robert,  104 

Bowring,  Sir  John,  and  the  Khetlive, 
166,  167 

Boyer,  "The  Political  State  of  Great 
Britain,"  279 

Bradlaugh,  the  affinnation  incident, 
147-15 1  ;  "  The  Impeachment  of  the 
House  of  Brunswick,"  14S;  com- 
mitted to  the  Clock  Tower,  lS8  ; 
mention eii,  59 

Brand,  Speaker,  134,  163,  171,  187 

Bribery,  devices  of  the  Stuarts,  6-g  ; 
retaining  fees  to  Scottish  members, 
9;  prices  of  posts,  9,  10;  prices  of 


seats,  10-12  ;  corruption  of  the  trea- 
sury, 12  ;  effort  to  destroy,  12,  13 

Bright,  John,  Dr.  Kenealy  and,  152  ; 
sayings  of,  167,  168,  170,  209; 
speeches,  212,  219 

Bristol,  Bishop  of,  punishment,  180, 181 

Bristol,  Burke's  speech  in,  47-49,  48 
note^ 

British  Museum,  trusteeship,  132 

British  Parliament,  the,  2 

Brodricke,  Sir  Allen,  192 

Brougham,  Lord,  sajnngs  of,  quoted, 
103,  265;  Chancellor,  1 10  note  ^  ; 
character,  113,  115  ;  defence  of 
CJueen  Caroline,  1 1 5  and  note '  ;  un- 
popularity, 115,  116  ;  returning  the 
seal,  116  ;  and  Wellington,  1 16 
note*;  and  the  old  seal,  II8; 
speeches,  148  note,*  206,  209,  219  ; 
a  scene  in  the  house,  196  ;  mentioned, 
164,  194,  197 

Bucher,  ./uoted,  14  note* 

Buckingham,  isl  Duke,  I97,  252,  276; 
2nd  Duke,  192,  193 ;  Buckingham 
and  Chandos,  Duke  of,  194 

Buckingham  Palace,  152,  2S6 

Buckinghamshire,  59 

"Bulls,"  208,  209 

Burdett,  Sir  Francis,  155  note* 

Burgesse,  Dr.,  236 

Burghlcy,  Loni,   106 

Burke,  Kdmund,  "Works  and  Corres- 
pondence," cited,  5  ;  his  dclinition  of 
Party,  15  ;  the  quarrel  with  Fox, 
16,  17  ;  on  the  House  of  Lords,  18; 
an  incident,  31  ;  speech  at  Bristol, 
47-491  48  note*;  cited,  51,  159,  186, 
193;  on  the  study  of  the  law,  103; 
.sayings  of,  112  note  *,  166  and  note", 
282  ;  incident  of  the  d.Tgger,  148  and 
note*,  209;  Rolle  and,  196;  on 
Lord  North,  198  ;  speeches  of,  204- 
206,  218,  223;  on  Sheridan,  205; 
stvlc,  20S  ;  fondness  for  debate,  260, 
261  ;  and  the  Press,  282 ;  mentioned, 

'93 
Burnet,  Bishop,  10 
Burncy,  Fanny,  1 78 
Bury  St.  Edmunds,  60 
Bute,  Lord,  13  note  *  ;  premicrsliip,  91 
Butt,  170 

Buxton,  "  Memoirs,"  52 
liuxton.  Sir  T.  F.,  saying,  209 
l^y"g>  George,  qiwted,  33  note* 
Byron,   pedigree  of   37  ;  quoted,   204  ; 
on  Burke,  205,  206 


Cabinet  Council,  the,  origin,  S1-S2; 


INDEX 


301 


under  the  Stuarts,  83  ;  the  system  of 
to-day,  83;  first  official  use  of  the 
term,  84  ;  members  of,  in  1740,  84; 
members  not  holding  office,  85 ; 
times  of  meeting,  85,  86  ;  the  Sove- 
reign's presence,  86  ;  secrecy,  87  ; 
10,  Downing  Street,  87,  88  ;  the 
Prime  Minister's  position,  89  ; 
qualities  of  successful  prime  ministers, 
90-95 ;  Cabinet  dinners,  86  and 
notes  ;  privileges  of  Cabinet  ministers, 
138 

Cairns,  Lord,  1 18  note'^ 

Calais,  defence  of,  184 

Calendar  reform,  218 

"Call  of  the  House,"  186 

Camden  Society,  the,  3  uote"^ 

Campbell,  Lord,  Chancellor  of  Ireland, 
loi  note^  ;  "Lives,"  quoted,  108 
and  note  ^,  103,  12^  note  ^ 

Canada  Bill,  the,  of  1791. ..16 

Canning,  style,  94  ;  sayings,  quoted, 
96  note ' ;  and  the  King's  Speech, 
156;  attack  on  Brougham,  164; 
duel,  200;  first  speech,  212;  elo- 
quence of,  219 

Canterbury,  Abbot  of,  104 

Canterbury,  Archbishop  of  23,  82,  84 

Canute,  60 

Carhanipton,  Lord,  see  Luttrel, 
Colonel 

Carleton,  Sir  Dudley,  190 

Carlisle,  Lady,  8 

Carlyle,  "  Letters  and  Speeches  of 
Oliver  Cromwell,"  (/«^/c'fl',  122  note  * ; 
on  "  Historical  Collections,"  quoted, 
277 

Carnabie,  Sir  W.,  187 

Carnarvon,  Lord,  speech  of,  193 

Caroline,  Queen,  115,  184 

Carrington,  family  of,  62  note^ 

Casllereagh,  Lord,  premiership,  91  ; 
duel,  200 

Catholic  emancipation,  204  ;  Abbot 
on,  124 

Catholicism,  13 

Cavaliers,  the,  13 

Cave,  bookseller,  279,  280 

Cavendish,  Lord,  190 

Cavendish,  Lord  John,  speech  quoted, 
127,  127  note^ 

Cavendish,  Sir  Henry,  reporting,  285 
and  note  ^ 

Cecil,  Lord  Robert,  see  Salisbury 

Cecil,  Robert,  138,  249 

Censorship,  Commons  refuse  to  renew, 
1695. ..278 

Ceremony,  Selden's  saying  regarding, 
134  and  note^ 


Chair,  the,  deference  to,  162 

Chairman  of  Committees,  231,  232 

Chairman  of  Ways  and  Means,  231, 
233 

Chamberlain,  Austen,  52  note^ 

Chamberlain,  Joseph,  the  attack  on 
Gladstone,  summer,  1893. ..130,  131  ; 
opprobrious  names  for,  164 

Chamberlain,  the  Lord  Great,  his 
duties  at  the  Palace  of  Westminster, 
62  note,^  151 

Chanceller,  the  Lord,  origin  of  the 
office,  103,  104  ;  the  office  held  by 
Clerics,  104  ;  duties,  104,  105,  109, 
1 10 ;  the  Chancellorship  and  the  Lord 
Keepership  joined,  105, 106  ;  famous 
Lord  Chancellors,  107-109  ;  judicial 
position,  no;  salary,  117;  social 
position,  117;  perquisites,  Il8  ;  the 
opening  of  Parliament,  136,  137,  141  ; 
approval  of  the  Speaker-Elect,  144, 
145  ;  taking  the  Oath,  146  ;  receiving 
a  newly  created  peer,  151;  meeting 
the  King,  152  ;  reading  the  King's 
Speech,  156,  157;  deputies,  232,  233 

Chancery,  Court  of,  106,  109,  no 

Chaplain,  the  Parliamentary',  236,  237 

Chaplin,  H.,  258 

Charles  I.,  reign  of,  6,  7  ;  presence  in 
the  Commons,  8 ;  trial,  63 ;  death 
sentence,  70 ;  Cabinets,  85  ;  Parlia- 
ments, 120,  226,  252 ;  Speakers, 
122  ;  parliamentary  fines,  185  ;  at- 
tempt to  arrest  the  five  memlsers, 
277 ;  relations  with  the  Commons, 
286 

Charles  H.,  restoration,  3 ;  Parlia- 
ments, 6,  190,  277,  278  ;  presence  in 
the  Lords,  9  ;  decoration  of  St. 
Stephen's,  69 ;  lying-in-State,  70 ; 
the  Privy  Council,  82  ;  Cabinets,  ?>:^, 
85,  86,  87,  89 ;  Chancellors,  107  ; 
Speakers,  122,  123,  144  ;  the  restora- 
tion, 191 ;  Parliamentary  dress,  201 

Chatham,  see  William  Pitt ;  on  the 
Magna  Charta,  quoted,  21  ;  his  reply 
to  Walpole,  54  and  note  ^ ;  speeches, 
207,  219;  a  protest  by,  264;  mefi- 
t toned,  70,  193 

Chaucer,  61 

Chelmsford,  Lord,  loi  note'^ 

Chelsea  parish  church,  108 

Chester,  representation,  39 

Chesterfield,  Lord,  115  ;  "  Letters,"  54 
and  note  •* ;  on  oratory,  215;  on  the 
intelligence  of  the  Commons,  217, 
218 

Chiltern  Hundreds,  the,  59,  147,  150, 
212  note  • 


302 


THE   MOTHER    OF    PARLIAMENTS 


Cholmondeley,  279  iiote^\  family  of, 
62  note ' 

Churchill,  Lord  Randolph,  saying  of, 
quoted,  16  note^ ;  at  the  Treasury, 
98 ;  attack  on  Bradlaugh,  148  ;  on 
the  King's  speech,  155;  speeches  of, 
220 ;  his  nightly  letter  to  the  Queen, 
2S6  note  > 

Cicero,  204,  2 16 

Cinque  Ports,  the  Lord  Warden  of,  90  ; 
fine  inflicted  on  the,  184 

Clandon,  132  note'^ 

Clarendon,  Ifyde,  Earl  of,  impeach- 
ment, 53>  82  ;  mentioned,  85  ;  ofticcs 
held,  107;  speeches  of,  231  note'-, 
277,  278 

Clarendon,  Lord,  95  note^ 

Clarke,  Mrs.,  67 

Clavis  Regni,  1 04 

Clergymen,  election  of,  56 

Clerk  of  the  House,  his  duties,  139-142 

Clerk  of  the  Parliaments,  246  and  note  ^ 

Clififord,  Lord,  6 

ClifTord,  Sir  Augustus,  154 

Clock  Tower,  the,  188,  231 

"Closure"  rule,  the,  171,  1 72;  first 
application,  187,  188 

Clolhworkers'  Company,  132 

Cobbctt,  William,  68,  133,  138,  139, 
214,  282-284;  "Cobbctl"s  Parlia- 
mentary Debates,"  284  ;  "  Weekly 
Political  Register,"  the,  284 

Cubden,  s;iyings  quoted,  134,  20y 

Cochrane,  Lord,  cxi>elled,  188 

Cockburn,  "Life  of  Jeffrey,"  quoted, 
197 

Cockpit,  the,  Whitehall,  84,  154  and 
note* 

Coercion  Act,  176 

Coke,  Sir  Edward,  49,  104,  121,  133, 
143.  158,  159.  163.  164,  197 

Commercial  Distre^s,  debate  on,  204 

Commission,  Parliament  opened  by, 
13s. 136 

Committees,  81  ;  the  Committee  of 
State,  82  ;  the  Committee  of  Council, 
84  ;  Select  Committees,  159  and 
note  •,  230  ",  origin  of  system,  230  ; 
Committees  of  the  whole  House, 
231  ;  Committees  of  Public  Petitions, 
238 
Commons,  House  of.  Journals,  3  ;  first 
mention,  3  ;  political  ascendancy,  4  ; 
under  Cromwell,  7,  8  ;  the  Royal 
presence  in,  8,  9  ;  Constitution  in 
1815...11  ;  the  Party  system  estab- 
lished, 14  ;  the  method  of  "  tacking," 
30  ;  doctrines  concerning  money 
bills,    30,  31  ;    relations  'with    tlie 


Lords,  31-33;  resolutions  for  the 
reform  of  the  House  of  Lords,  34 
and  notes,  38 ;  separated  from  the 
Lords,  39,  40  ;  the  Reformed  Parlia- 
ment, 41,  42  ;  increase  in  size,  42  ; 
the  first  Lai  our  Candidates,  42;  life 
of  a  modern  legislator,  43  ;  payment 
of  members,  44-47 ;  advantages  of 
the  position,  47-49  ;  the  members' 
duties,  49-51  ;  advantages  of  mem- 
bership, 52  ;  qualitication  for  election, 
52-54  ;  disqualifications,  53-57  ;  ex- 
clusion of  infants,  53,  54  ;  peers 
elected  to,  55  note"  ;  vacating  a  seat, 
58 ;  establishment  in  St.  Stephen's 
Chapel,  66-67  ;  the  prestnt  House, 
74 ;  the  mace,  74,  75 ;  members' 
comforts,  75-78  ;  Bellamy's  old 
kitchen,  76-80  ;  the  Kitchen  Com- 
mittee, 78  ;  Commoners  in  the 
Cabinet,  85 :  the  scene  in  the  House, 
summer,  1893...  130-31  ;  the  opening 
i)f  Parliament  by  Commission,  135- 
137  ;  retention  of  scats,  137-139  ;  the 
Clerk  of  the  House,  139, 140  ;  arrival 
of  Black  Rod,  140,  141  ;  election  of 
the  Speaker,  141-143  ;  called  to  the 
Bar  of  the  Lords,  140,141,  153-155; 
second  arrival  of  Bl.ick  Rod;  143; 
taking  the  Oath,  145-147  ;  introduc- 
tion t»f  a  new  member,  151,  152  ; 
balloting  for  places  at  the  bar  of  the 
Lords,  154  and  note^  ;  rules  of 
debate,  160-172;  hours  of  sitting, 
22S ;  summoned  to  the  Lords  to 
hear  the  Royal  Assent,  247  ;  divisions, 
248-251  ;  the  Press  Gallery,  284,285 

Commonwealth,  Parliament  under  the, 
7,8 

Commune  Conctltum,  the,  2 

Compton,    Spencer,    see  Wilmington, 
Lord 

Conferences,  246 

"Coningsby,"  18 

Coningsby,  Lord,  23,  24 

Consort,  Prince,  156 

Contempt  of  Parliament,  176,  177,  183 

Copyright   Bill,  (1839),    169;   (1842), 
204 

Corn  duties,  88 

Corn  Importation  Bill,  29  and  note  ^ 

Com  Laws  abolition,  bill  for,  29 

Cornwall,  Speaker,  129 

Cornwallis,  Lord,  95  note^ 

Corporation  Act,  27  note^,  55 

Correction,  House  of,  180 

Corrupt    and    Illegal    Practices     Pre- 
vention Act,  43  note'' 

Cory,  family  of,  descent,  37 


INDEX 


303 


Council  of  the  Chiefs,  2 

Councils,  early,  81  ;  Great  Council  of 

Peers,  1840... 82 
"Counting  out,"  234,  235 
Country  Party,  the,  13 
Court  Cullies,  7 
Court  Party,  the,  13 
Courtney,  of,  "  Characteristics,"  quoted, 

91  noie'^ 
Covenanters,  the,  13 
Coventry,  60,  190 
Cowper,     William,     afterwards    Lord 

Chancellor,  214,  215 
Cranworth,  Lord,  26 
Crimean  War,  209 
"Crisis,"  the,  188 
Croker,    250   noie^ ;   on   the   relations 

between     the     two     Houses,      32 ; 

"  Papers,"  quoted,  49  note- 
Cromwell,        Oliver,        the       famous 

"  bauble,"   7,    74 ;   his    opinion    of 

Scotland,   9  note^ ;  and  corruption, 

12 ;  on   the   House   of  Lords,    19  ; 

and  the  Lords  Spiritual,  23  ;  death 

warrant    of    Charles    L,   70 ;    and 

Parliament,  122 
Cromwell,  Richard,  236 
Crowle,  attorney,  178 
Crown,    power  of  the  4-6  ;  curtailed, 

8.9 

"Cullies,"  7 

Cumberland,  Duke  of,  92 

Curia    Regis,    the,     constitution,    20, 

81  ;  separated  from  Parliament,  22 
Curran,  a  retort  of,  209  note  - 
Curzon,  Lord,  of  Kedleston,  26  note^ 
Cust,  Sir  John,  death  1770... 1 27 
Customs,  corruption  in  the,  12 


Danby,  fall  of,  82 

Daniel,  27  note^ 

Debate,  rules  of,  158 

Deceased  Wife's  Sister  Bill,  251 

Delany,  Mrs.,  "Autobiography,"  46 

Demosthenes,  216,  220 

Denison,  Speaker,  122  note^,  128,  129, 

134,  141 
Deportment,  Parliamentary,  189-202 
Derby  Day,  227 
Derby,  Lord,  29,   91    note^,   97,    loi 

note,  X94  note^ 
Dering,  Sir  Edward,  punishment,  180 
Desborough,  59 
Devonshire,  Duchess  of,  270 
Devonshire,  Duke  of,  86  note ',  92 
D'Ewes,  Sir  Symonds  185,  285  ;   his 

note-taking,  276,  277 
Diary,  Woodfall's,  283,  284 


Dickens,  cited,  77,  79 
Digby,  Lord,  speech,  277 
Dilke,  Sir  Charles,  196 

Dinners,  ministerial,  155 

Disraeli,  use  of  the  term  "  Tory,"  14 , 
and  the  Lords,  28,  33  ;  sayings  of, 
quoted,  43,  59,  74,  94 ;  premiership, 
91,  94;  cabinet,  99;  a  pun  on,  loi 
note^  ,  Queen's  speeches,  155;  un- 
parliamentary language,  164 ;  and 
O'Connell,  195,  196 ;  and  lawyers, 
210;  speeches,  212,  213,  220;  de- 
scription of  Peel,  1846... 253  fiote  ^  ; 
on  "  whips,"  254  ;  and  Biggar,  265 

Divisions,  in  the  Commons,  248-51  ; 
in  the  Lords,  251  note^,  253 

Divorce  Bill,  the,  169 

Donegal,  Lady,  5 1  note  ' 

Doorkeepers,  remuneration  of,  261 

Dorchester,  Lord,  192 

Downing,  Sir  George,  87 

Downing  Street,  87 

Dress,  Parliamentary,  189-202 

Drury  Lane,  186 

Drybutter,  69 

Dryden,  "  Shadwell,"  128  ;  quoted, 
227 

Dublin  University,  17  note'^ 

Duelling,  Parliamentary,  200,  201 

Dundas,  see  Melville,  Lord 

Dunning,  9 

Dunraven,  Lord,  bill  for  reforming 
the  House  of  Lords,  36 

Durham,  Bishop  of,  174 

Durham,  enfranchisement  of,  39  and 
note^ 


Earldormen,  2 

Earl  Marshal,  duties,  15 1 

Edgeworth,  Maria, "  Life  and  Letters," 
quoted,  271,  272 

Edinburgh,  191 

"Edinburgh  Review,"  115 

Education  Bill  of  1902. ..172 

Edward  L,  reign  of,  4,  27,  64,  66  ;  and 
the  Earl  de  Warrene,  21  ;  Chan- 
cellors, 107  ;  Parliaments,  252,  268 
note  * 

Edward  H.,  27,  60 

Edward  III.,  reign  of,  3,  39,  57,  64, 
120  note^,  156;  Parliaments  of,  44, 
268  7iote- ;  restoration  of  St. 
Stephen's,  66 

Edward  VL,  3  ;  enfranchisement  of 
rotten  boroughs,  40 

Edward  VIL,  (Prince  of  Wales)  227; 
incident  in  the  Stranger's  gallery, 
264,  265  ;  lying-in-state,  63 


304 


THE   MOTHER   OF   PARLIAMENTS 


Edwa.rd  the  Confessor,  60 
Eldon,  Lord,  Chancellor,  104  note'^, 
155,  198  ;  on  Thurlow,  III  ;  charac- 
ter of,  1 13-15;  his  "Anecdote 
Book,"  114  no/e^ ;  salary,  117; 
letter  to  Dr.  Fisher,  117  note"; 
decisions  of,  183 

Eleanor,  Queen,  105  andfiolc^ 

Elections,  cost  of,  43  and  note  * 

Elibank,  Lord,  178 

Eliot,  Sir  John,  7,  75,  189 

IClizabeth,  Queen,  Parliaments,  22, 
53,  81,  82.  190,  236,  249  ;  reign  of, 
23  note\  25,  62  noie^  ;  creation  of 
rotten  lioroughs,  40 ;  and  Holland, 
70 ;  Chancellors  of,  105-6 ;  visil 
to  Westminster,  144  ;  Speakers, 
145  ;  the  sergeant-at-arms,  181  not^  • ; 
monopolies,  197 ;  rarliamcntary 
Committees,  230  ;  bills  quashed,  248 

Elleuborough,  Lord,  85  ;  sayings  of, 
quoted,  113  note- 

EUesmere,  Lord,  on  the  office  of  the 
Lord  Chancellor,  quoted,  103  noti^ 

Elsyng,  3  note"^,  139  and  note*  \ 
"Parliaments  of  England,"  quoted, 
142 

I'Hy,  Abbot,  of,  104 

]'"nierson,  quoted,  17 

English  Railway  Committee,  230,  231 

I'lpsom,  227 

Equity,  Court  of,  107 

l]rle.  Sir  Walter,  iSo  and  note'' 

Erskine,  Janus,  see  Grange,  Lord 

"  Espying  Strangers,"  264,  265,  283 

Essex,  Earl  of,  6  ;  trial,  63 

Ethelred,  Chancellors  of,  104 

Evans,  Colonel,  250 

Evans,  Sir  George  de  Lacy,  139  and 
ftote ' 

"  Examiner,"  the,  278 

Exchange,  the,  175 

Exchequer  Court,  147 

Exclusion  Bill,  1679. ..13 

Executive,  the,  81 


Falkland,  Lord,  saying  of,   quoted, 

53 
Farnham,  I^rd,  24  note^ 
F"a\vkes,  Guy,  135,  136 
Fazakericy,  97 
Female  Sufl'ragc,  265 
Fenian  scares,  18S5...263 
Ferguson  of  Pilfour,  50 
Fcrrars,  arrest  of,  174 
Finance  Bill  of  1909. ..172,  207 
Finch,  Lord,  speech  of,  213,  214 
Finch,  Speaker,  122,  197 


Fines,  Parliamentary,  i S3- 185 

Fire  of  London,  62 

"  First  Commoner,"  132 

First  Statute  of  Westminster,  2 

Fisher,  Dr.,  of  the  Charter  House,  117 
note^ 

Fitzwilliam,  Lord,  85 

Fleet,  the,  174 

Flood,  corruption  by,  10  ;  on  Pitt,  217 

Floyd,  punishment  of,  179 

Foreign  Office,  87,  240 

Forster,  quoted,  91 

Foster,  John  L^lie,  Sheil's  essay  on, 
78-80 

Fox,  Charles  James,  Burke's  quarrel 
with,  16,  17  ;  Lord  North's  dis- 
missal, 97;  saying  of,  quoted,  113  ; 
the  Peace  of  Paris,  193  ;  scene  in 
the  House,  197,  198  ;duel,  200-201  ; 
eloquence,  206;  his  speeches,  216, 
217,  223,  224  ;  mentioned,  43,  49,  54, 
76,  187  note^ 

Fox,  Sir  Stephen,  7  note^ 

"  Fr.anking,"  the  privilege  of,  46,47 

French  Fleet,  visit  to  London,  64 

French  Revolution,  the,  33  note ' 

Fuller,  194  ;  insults  the  Chair,  233 


Gardiner,  Dr.,  "  History,"  rito/,  4 

(•.irdiner.  Sir  Alan,  211 

tiaribaldi,  239  note^ 

Gartcr-King-at-Arms,  duties,  151 

Garter,  Order  of  the,  136 

Gascony,  117 

Gatton,  r(jttcn  borough  of,  lo,  268 

Gemot  of  Wessex,  2,  3 

"Gentleman's  Magazine,"  the,  279, 
280 

George  L,  cabinets,  86 

George  H.,  cabinets,  87  ;  the  King's 
Speech,  155;  sayings  of,  quoted,  243 

George  111.,  relations  with  the  Com- 
mons, 9  ;  correspondence  with  Lord 
North,  10 ;  creation  of  Peers,  22 ; 
coronation,  63 ;  cabinets,  96  note  '  ; 
Chancellors,  106  ;  and  Thurlow, 
112;  Parliaments,  121,  238,  286; 
Speakers,  128  note^  ;  the  King's 
Speech,  155;  parliamentary  privi- 
leges under,  175,  176;  (Prince  of 
Wales),  256 

George  IV.,  at  Westminster  Palace,  62 
note '  ;  accession,  64 ;  the  King's 
Speech,  156;  (Regent),  238 

George,  Lloyd,  207 

German  sources  of  the  English  con- 
stitution, I,  2 

Germans,  early,  manners  of,  i 


INDEX 


305 


Gibbon,  95  note ',  223  ;  Sheridan  and, 
282 

Gladstone,  sayings  of,  quoted,  13,  58, 
95.  199;  "tacking,"  30-31  ;  on  the 
relations  between  the  two  Houses, 
31 ;  lying-in-State,  63  j  and  Disraeli, 
74  ;  offices  held  by,  83,  7iote ' ;  on 
etiquette,  90  ;  premiership,  92,  94, 
167,  221  J  at  debate,  99;  Chamber- 
lain's attack  on,  summer  1893...  130- 
31  ;  the  Bradlaugh  incident,  149 ; 
Queen's  speeches,  155  ;  the  hat 
incident,  159,  160;  on  obstruction, 
169;  proposed  alteration  in  procedure, 
171,  172;  speeches,  207,  212;  on 
oratory,  215 ;  mentioned,  239  and 
note  ' 

Glasgow,  20 

Glastonbury,  Abbot  of,  104 

Godolphin,  83 

Gordon,  Duchess  of,  272 

Gordon,  Lord  George,  235 

Gordon  Riots,  the,  238  note'^ 

Goschen,  Lord,  speeches,  221 

Govver,  Lord,  10,  264 

Gower,  Lord  F.  L.,  186 

Grafton,  Duke  of,  32 

Grand  Committees,  232 

Grand  Remonstrance,  the,  8,  185,  190 

Grange,  Lord,  speeches,  214 

Grant,  General,  262 

Grant,  "  Recollections,"  quoted,  164 
and  note,  283 

Grantham,  borough  of,  45 

Granville,  Lady,  "Letters,"  quoted,  86 
nole^,  115  note'^ 

Granville,  Lord,  86  note^,  115  note^ 

Grattan,  "  Life  and  Times,"  cited,  92  ; 
speeches,  120,  216  and  note^,  223; 
saying,  quoted,  169 ;  motion  for 
Catholic  emancipation,  204 ;  on  Pitt, 
quoted,  217 

Gravel  Pits,  Kensington,  200 

Great  Council,  the,  84 

"  Great  Tom  of  Westminster,"  66  and 
note^,  73 

Grenville,  George,  89,  91,  124,  133, 
193,  286 

Grenville,  Lord,  proposal  regarding 
Westminster,  65 

Grenville,  Richard,  217  note'^ 

Grenville,  on  the  presence  of  women 
in  Parliament,  2'jo  and  note* 

Grey,  Lord,  266  ;  his  Reform  bill,  169 

Griffith,  Darby,  240 

Griffiths,  Admiral,   177 

Grimston,  Edward,  75 

"  Guardian,"  the,  213 

Guilford,  Lord,  Chancellor,  108,  109 


Guilford,  Lord,  son  of  Lord  North,  212 

and  note ' 
"  Guillotine,"  the,  172 
Gully,  Speakership,  125,  141,  142,  181 
Gunter,  164  fiote^ 
Guthrie,  editor,  279,  280 
G\vydyr,  Lord,  62  note  ^ 


Habeas  Corpus  Act,  224 

Hakewell,  «te/,  120  note  ^ 

Halifax,  277 

Halifax,  ist  Lord,  saying  of,  qjioted^  19 

Halifax,  Lord,  Lord  Lieutenant  of 
Ireland,  214 

Hall,  Arthur,  member  of  Parliament 
for  Grantham,  175  ;  punishment,  179 

Hall,  Sir  Benjamin,  73  note  - 

Hamilton,  William  Gerard,  his  speech, 
214 

Hampden,  8,  190,  277 

Hampton  Court,  6 

Handel,  217  note^ 

Hanmer,  Sir  John,  190 

Hanoverian  Parliaments,  times  of 
session,  225 

Hansard,  T.  C,  publication  of  debates, 
284,  285 

Harcourt,  Sir  Philip,  191 

Hardwicke,  Lord,  Chancellor,  96,  97 ; 
on  Strangers,  263,  264 

Harley,  Sir  Robert,  Speaker,  53,  83, 
133;  Premier,  90,91,278;  Chan- 
cellor, no  note^ 

Harrowby,  Lord,  115  ' 

Harrys,  Dr.,  176 

Plartley,  David,  speech  of,  206,  207 

Harwich,  borough  of,  45  note" 

Haselrig,  8 

Hastings,  Warren,  impeachment,  63, 
178,  204,  205,  282 

Hatherton,  Lord,  32 

Hats,  etiquette  concerning,  159,  160 

Hatsell,  Clerk  of  the  House,  139,  140; 
"Precedents,"  cited,  75,  152  and 
note'^,  153  note^,  167 

Hengham,  Sir  Ralph  de,  66 

Henry  I.,  reign,  21,  62  note^,  81  ; 
Chancellors,  117 

Henry  H.,  64 

Henry  HI.,  4 ;  Parliaments,  64,  268 
note ' 

Henry  VL,  reign,  27,  40,  42;  Parlia- 
ments, 125  note^,  174,  182,  184 

Henry  VH.,  reign,  4 

Henry  VIIL,  reign,  3,  60,  62  note'^,  81, 
144,  145  ;  Parliaments  of  6,  22,  44, 
136,  144,  184,  252  ;  removal  to 
Whitehall,  62;  death,  107  note^ 


3o6 


THE   MOTHER   OF   PARLIAMENTS 


Heptarchy,  the,  2,  20 

Heredity,  the  principle  of,  1 8-20 

"  Herod,"  130 

Herries,  253 

Hewitt,  speeches,  207 

"  Historical  Register,"  the,  279 

Hobart,  Sir  Miles,  75 

Hogan,  168 

Holland,  Earl  of,  6 

Holies,  8 

Holt,  Lord  Chief  Justice,  182 

Home    Rule   Bill,    (1886)  207  ;  (1893) 

29, 172 
"  Honourable,"  the  title,  165 
Hopton,  Sir  Ralph,  I  So 
Hotham,  Lord,  204 
"  House-fright,"  210-212 
Howard,  1x>tc\,  70 
Howard,     Francis,    "Memoirs,"    217 

ftO/£  * 

"  Hudibras  "  139  ant/  tiote* 

Hughes,  Hughes,  17 

Hull,  borough  of,  45  noti'* 

Hume,  David,  68,  76 

Hume,  Joseph,  in  the  House,  71,  139 

Hungcrford,  Sir  Thomas,  Speaker,  1 19, 
1 20  fioti ' 

Hunt,  first  speeches,  214 

Ilulchoson,  speech,  206 

Hyde,  Lord,  95  nole^  ;  J^^  <2/j<;  Claren- 
don 


Idiots,  laws  concerning,  54,  55 

Ireland,  Act  of  Union,  24 

Irish  members  in  Hcllaray's,  79  ;  sus- 
pension of,  1 87,  188 

Irish  Municipal  Hill,  264 

Irish  Oflicc,  llie,  239 

Irish  Parliament,  190 

Irish  I'arty  tactics,  169   171 

Irish  Peers,  26 ;  rights  of,  55,  56  ; 
introduction  in  the  Lords,  151 

Isabella,  Queen,  10$ 


James    I.,    creation    of     Peers,     22  ; 

Parliaments,  53,  70,  179,   iSo,   233; 

Councils,  82 
James  II.,  164 
"Jane,"  79 
Jeffrey,   Lord,  saying  of,  quoted,   183; 

style,  210 
Jeffreys,  Chancellor,  108  and  note ' 
Jenkins,  Judge,  176,  177 
Jewish  Oaths  Bill,  29 
Jews,  disabilities,  27  and  note, ^  55,  I47 
John,  King,  4,  21,  22 


Johnson,  Dr.,  and  Dunning's  resolution, 

9  and  note-  ;  saying  of,  quoted,  168  ; 

on  oratory,  215  ;  and  Cave,  279,  280 
Johnson,  Sir  Robert,  269 
Johnstone,  Captain,  270 
Jonson,  Ben,  saying  of,  quoted,  205 
Journals,   Parliamentary,   3,  233,  276, 

279 
"Judas,"  130 
Judges  at  the  opening  of  Pailiament, 

152,  153  note^ 
Judicature  Act,  1873. ..107,  note* 
"  Juncto,"  the,  82 
"Junius  letters,"  the,  281 
Justice,  High  Court  of,  1 10 


Katherine,  Queen,  190 
Kce{^>er>hiiJ  of  the  Great  Seal,  105 
Kendall,  Captain,  his  reply  to  Middle- 
ton,  6 
Kenealy,     Dr.,     introduction     to     the 

House,     152  ;    si)eeches,    210  ;    the 

Tichborne  case,  253 
Khedive,    the,    visit    to   the   House   of 

Commons,  166,  167 
King,    Dr.,    "  Anecdotes,"  quoted,  24 

note ' 
King's  champion,  the,  63,  64 
King's  Speech,  the,  152   157 
Kingsdown,  Baron,  see  Leigh,  Pember- 

ton 
Kingston,  Duchess  of,  trial,  63 
Kneeling  at   the   Bar  of    the    House, 

177.  »7S 


La  IK)t;UE,  battle  of,  199 
Laboucherc,  sayings  oi,  quoted,  77 
Labour  Members,  the  first,  42  ;  dress 

of,  202 
I^cour,  M.  Challeniel,  167 
Ladies'   Gallery,    the,    unruly   scenes, 

273,  274 
Lancelot,  31 
I^nd  Act,  18S1...70 
Land  League,  the,  176 
Lane,  Mrs.,  65  note* 
I>angres,  Hercule,  8 
Langrishc,  Sir  Hercules,  285  noW* 
I^ngu.igc,  "Parliamentary,"  163 
Latour,  Colonel,  1 67 
Laud,  "  Diary,"  eited,  64,  65 
Law  Courts,  London,  64 
Law     Courts,    the,      collisions     with 

Parliament,  182 
Law  Lords,  the,  25,  26 
Lawson,  Sir   \Vilfrid,    165  note"^,  zrj, 

267 


INDEX 


307 


Lawyers  and  the  House  of  Commons, 

57,  210 
htcky,  guo/^d,  II,  12 
Lefevrc,  Shaw,  Speakership,  134,   141, 

159 

Leicester,  60 

Leigh,  Pemberton,  26 

Leitrim,  Lord,  speech  of,  235 

Lenthall,  Speaker,  67  no/e,^  120,  121, 

122,  131,  i^g  7ioU^,  186,  1S7 
Levis,  family  of,  37 
Lewes,  4 

Lewes,  Sir  Watkin,  77 
Lewis,  Sir  George  Cornwall,  sayings  of, 

quoted,  98,  169 
Liberal  Conservatives,  the,  14 
Liberal  Unionists,  the,  33 
Licensing  bills,  238,  278 
Life  Peerages,  25,  26 
Limerick,  Earl  of,  183 
Lincoln,  60 
Lincoln's  Inn,  232 
Livy,  203 
Llandaff,    Bishop  of,   his  amendment. 

Local  Taxation  Bill,  238 

Lock,  Zachary,  211 

Locke,  report  of  Lord's  debate,   278 

"  London  Magazine,"  280 

Long,  Parliament,  the,  42,  177,  189, 
231  nole"^,  2-n,  278 

Long,  Thomas,  44,  45 

Lonsdale,  Lord,  86  note^ 

Lord  Mayor,  the,  collision  with  Parlia- 
ment, 281 

Lords,  House  of.  Journals,  3  ;  under 
Cromwell,  7,  8  ;  the  Royal  Presence, 
8, 9  ;  the  principle  of  heredity,  18-20  ; 
origin  and  antiquity,  20-22,  39  ; 
number  of  Peers  attending,  22  ;  the 
Lords  Spiritual,  22,  23 ;  election  of 
the  Irish  and  Scottish  Peers,  24  atui 
note^ ',  judicial  functions,  24,  25; 
introduction  of  the  four  Lords  of 
Appeal,  24,  25  ;  the  Supreme  Court 
of  Appeal,  25,  26 ;  numerical 
increase,  25-27  ;  composition  to- 
day, 27  ;  the  writ  of  summons, 
27  ;  functions,  28  ;  public  opinion 
on,  29  ;  rejection  of  bills,  29,  30  ; 
money  bills  and  foreign  matter, 
30,  31  ;  relations  with  the  Com- 
mons, 31-33  ;  the  Liberal  Peers, 
33  ;  Conservative  character,  33,  34  ; 
proposed  reform,  34  and  noics-^,^  ; 
separation  from  the  Commons,  39, 40; 
temporary  abolition,  55  note" ;  the 
pew  Upper  Chamber,  73  ;  the  Chan- 
cellor's position,    no;    The    Lords 


Commissioners,  136,  141,  143,  144, 
145,  155,  247;  opening  by  commision, 
136-14 1  ;  arrival  of  the  Commons, 
141  ;  approval  of  the  Speaker- Elect, 
144,  145  ;  taking  the  Oath,  145-47; 
introduction  of  a  newly  created  peer, 

151  ;  arrival  of  the  King  and  Queen, 

152  ;  the  Gilded  Chamber,  152  ; 
rules  of  debate,  160  et  seq  ;  length  of 
speeches,  167  ;  "call  "  of  the  Lords, 
186  and  7iote^\  maiden  speeches, 
215  ;  days  of  adjournment,  227,  228  ; 
divisions,  251,  253  ;  voting  by  proxy, 
252 ;  the  presence  of  women,  269  ; 
the  Press  gallery,  284,  285 

Lords,  the  old  Irish  House  of,  228 
7iote  - 

Loughborough,  Lord,  95  7/ote^,  g6,  113 
and  note  *,  282 

Lowe,  Chancellor,  98 

Luggershall,  lo 

Lunatics,  laws  concerning,  54,  55 

Luttrel,  Colonel,  95  note  ',  201 

Lyndhurst,  Lord,  sayings  of,  quoted, 
27  note'^,  loi  7wte'^ ;  the  Two  Power 
Standard,  109  a7id  7tote^  ;  and  the 
old  seal,  118;  scenes  in  the  House, 
197,  235,  264 

Lynn,  voters  of,  59 


Macaulay,  cited,  10,   14,  58,  63,  97, 

223,     253,      256  ;     "  Miscellaneous 

writings,"    qtioted,    90    note  ",     102 

7iote^ ;  on  the  King's  Speech,   155; 

on      parliamentary      scenes,       195  ; 

speeches  204,  220 ;  on  Burke,  205  ; 

eloquence     of,      219;     sayings     of, 

quo t id,  225 
Macclesfield,  Lord,  108 
Mace,  the,  74,  75,  139 
Mackintosh,    Sir    James,    sayings    of, 

quoted,  210,  215,  222 
Magna  Charta,  21,  22,  224 
Mahon,  Lord,  204 ;  speeches,  221 
Maidstone,  Lord,  195 
Malmesbury,    Lord,     "  Memoirs,"    86 

7iote ' 
Manchester,  Duke  of,  264 
Mann,  Sir  H.,  28 
Manners,  Lord  John,  220 
Mansfield,  Lord,  85,  93,  197 
"  Manwaring's  Medley,"  279 
Mare,  Sir  Peter  de  la,  120  7iote  * 
Marlborough,  Duke  of,  30 
Marshal,  Master,  236 
Martin,   Henry,  70 
Martineau,  Harriet,  on  the  presence  of 

women  in  Parliament,  272 


3o8 


THE   MOTHER   OF   PARLIAMENTS 


Marvell,  Andrew,  7,  45  w^/c-*,  191 
Mary,      Queen,      creation     of    rotten 

boroughs,  40 
Mass,  the,  236 

Matchmaker's  petition,  238  note  ' 
Matthews,  Home  Secretary,  164 
Maule,  Fox,  244  note  ' 
May,  Erskine,  139 
Maynooth  College,  17  itote^ 
"Mazur,"  103  note^ 
Mediterranean,  the,  12 
Melbourne,  Lord,   Prime   Minister,  88, 

156;    and     Lord     Brougham,     I16  ; 

rules  of  order,  163 
Melville,    Lord,     193  ;     impeachment, 

63,  198,  252,  253 
Middleton,  Commissioner,  191 
Middleton,  Secretary  of  State,  6 
Midhurst,  10 
Mildmay,  Sir  II.,  190 
Mill,  John  Stuart,  quoted^  19 
Milton,  205;  "Paradise   Lost,"  Lord 

Eldon's  opinion  on,  113 
"  Minister,'^  the  term,  84 
Ministers,       appointment     of     96-9S ; 

number  of,  98  ;  the  members  of  the 

administration,  98  ttole* 
"Mist's  Journal,"  183 
Modred,  31 

Mompesson,  Sir  Giles,  180 
Money  Hills,  doctrines  of  the  Commons 

concerning,     30,  31,    34  ;    returned 

from    the    Lords,    244    tioU  * ;    royal 

assent  to,  247 
Monmouth,  representation  of,   39  and 

noU ' 
Monopolies,  abolition  of,  197  :  punish- 
ment of  monopolists,  180 
Montacute,  Lord,  10 
Montagu,    Lady    M.    W.,    "  Letters," 

citciit  270  note* 
Montagu,  Mr.,  115  note^ 
Montague,  Walpole's  letters  to,  quoted, 

1 5  note  ' 
Montc.nglc,  Lord,  see  Spring-Rice 
Montesquieu,  cited,  I 
Moore,  Thomas,  08  ;  letters  of,  quoted, 

51  note  '  ;   "  Memoirs,"  77 
Mordaunt,  Sir  Charles,  46 
More,   Sir  Thomas,   53,  103,    106- loS, 

133.  208 
Morclon,    Chief    Justice    of    Chester, 

92.  93 
Moritz,  C.  P.,  f)7,  68,  260 
Morley,  Lord,  222 
"  Morning  Chronicle,"  reports,  282 
Morpeth,  Lady  G,  115  nole"^ 
Morpeth,  Lord,  76 
Moses,  170 


Mowbray,  Barony  of,  27 

MuUins,  69 

Murray,    Alexander,    punishment    of, 

Murray,    Solicitor-General,    see   Mans- 
field, Lord 
Musters,  famous  beauty,  270 


•'Naming,"  practise  of,  187 

National  Council,  the,  41,  81 

Naturalization  Bill,  1 75 1...  186 

Naturalization,  polical  rights  and,  55 

Naunton,  cited,  82 

Navy  office,  the,  67 

New  Palace  Yard,  65,  72 

Newgate,  1 78,  183 

Newsletters,  278 

Newspapers,  party  organs,  278-79 

Newton,  Sir  Isaac,  115 

Nonconformity,  13 

Norfolk,  3rd  Duke  of,  loS ;  lith 
Duke,  41 

Norrcys,  Lord,  195 

North  Briton,  28 1 

North,  Lord,  correspondence  with 
George  III.,  10  ;  premiership,  85,  94, 
96,  164,  206  ;  dismissal  of  Fox,  97  ; 
mentioned,  12S,  165  ;  somnolence  of, 
198,  199;  speeches  219 

North,  Roger,  "  Life  of  Lord  Guild- 
ford," quoted,  108,  109 

Northampton,  60 

Northcotc,  Sir  Stafford,  1 50 

Northstead,  59 

Norton,  Sir  Fletcher,  Speakership, 
128  and  note'*,  129  ;  saying  of, 
quoted,  187  note^ 

•'  Notice-paper,"  229,  230 


Gates,  Titus,  63,  66, 190 

Oath  of  Allegi.ance,  the,  dLsabilities 
under,  27  and  note^,  56  ;  adminis- 
tration, 145-147  ;  the  bradlaugh 
incident,  148-151 

Oath  i)f  Supremacy,  the,  259 

Oaths  Act,  i8S8...'i47,  14S 

O'Brien,  Smith,  230,  231 

Obstruction,  Irish  tactics,  168-172 

O'Connell,  Daniel,  saying  of,  quoted, 
17  attd  note^  ;  "Experiences,"  153  ; 
unparliamentary  language,  164 ; 
noisy  scenes  caused  by,  i9St  19^' 
motion  for  repeal  of  the  Union, 
220  «!'/«• '*,  speeches,  223;  scene  in 
the  Strangers'  Gallery,  266 ;  an 
incident,  271;  and  the  Press,  283; 
mentioned,  1 3  note* 


INDEX 


309 


O'Connell,  Morgan,  200 

O'Connor,  Feargus,  saying  of,  quoted, 

163 
O'Connor,  T.  P.,  "Gladstone's  House 

of  Commons,"  cited,  77 
O'Donnell,  167 
O'Gorman,  Major,  163 
Old  Sarum,  56 
One  Mile  Act,  238 
Onslow,  Arthur,  Speakership,  r6,  132, 

124,  141,  177,  187,  281 
Onslow,   Fulk,   Clerk   of  the  House, 

140 
Onslow,  Richard,  Speaker,  145 
Opposition,  the  recognition,  15,  16 
Orange-Women,  69 
Oratory,  the  gift  of,  215,  216 
"  Order  Book  "  of  the  House,  230 
Orphans  Bill,  1695. ..123 
Outlaws,  Irish,  13 
Oxford,  60 

Oxford,  Earl  of,  see  Harley 
Oxford,  1st  Earl,  62 

Painted  Chamber,  the  230 

*•  Pairing,"  255 

Palace  Yard,  70,  137,  181 

Palgrave,  Sir  F.,  Clerk  of  the  House, 
140 

Palmerston,  Lord,  on  the  Lords,  20, 
26 ;  cabinets,  88 ;  visit  to  Scotland, 
89,  90  ;  style,  94  ;  saying  of,  quoted, 
199  ;  mentioned,  34,  240 

Paper  Duties  Bill,  88 

Parke,  lawyer,  26 

Parliament,  derivation  of  the  word,  2  ; 
history  of,  3,  4 ;  the  first,  4,  5  ;  the 
two  Houses,  5 ;  duration,  5  and 
note^  -6;  the  Commonwealth,  7,  8; 
the  Royal  Presence  in,  8,  9  ;  prices 
of  scats,  10 ;  the  Party  principle, 
13-17  ;  separation  of  the  two  Houses, 
39,  40  ;  summoning  of,  60  ;  open- 
ing by  commission,  136-152;  the 
King's  speech,  152-157 ;  collisions 
with  the  law,  182,  183;  times  of 
meeting,  225 

Parliamentary  Proceedings  Bill,  248 

Parnell,  policy  of  obstruction,  169-171  ; 
"named,"  187 

Parr,  Dr.,  206 

Parry,  Dr.,  arrest,  179 

Partington,  Mrs.,  29 

Party  principle,  the  origin,  13-17 

Patriots,  14 

Payment  of  Members,  44-47 

Peace  of  Paris,  193 

Pearson,    head    doorkeeper,    69,    77, 
261,  262,  262  note'^,  271 
X  3 


Pease,  quaker,  147,  160 

Peel,  Sir  Robert,  and  Lord  John 
Russell,  17  ;  and  reform,  41,  42,  169  ; 
mentioned,  74,  85,  253  and  note'-; 
premiership,  91,  163  ;  style,  94  ;  on 
the  speakership,  quoted,  126 ;  dis- 
solution, 199,  200  ;  speech,  204  ;  a 
scene  in  the  House,  266 

Peel,  Speaker,  130,  134,  141,  163, 
274 

Peeresses,  at  the  opening  of  Parliament, 
152,  153.  w^^  *;  privileges  of,  174 
note ',  269 

Peers,  Liberal,  33 ;  creation  of  new, 
33  note";  exclusion  from  the  Com- 
mons, 55  ;  rights  of  Irish,  55,  56  ; 
privileges  of,  173,  174 

Pelham,  10,  88,  281 

Pepys'  "Diary,"  quoted,  45,  65  and 
note^,  87,  192,  213,  256  ;  accusations 
against,  67 

Perceval,  Spencer,  287  ;  assassination 
of,  266 

Ferrers,  Alice,  120  note* 

Peter  the  Great,  saying  of,  quoted,  64 

Peterborough,  Earl  of,  84 

Petition,  legislation  by,  40 

Petition  of  Right,  197 

Petitions,  237-239 

Petyt,  cited,  2 

Phillips,  158 

Piers  of  Langtoft,  105  note  * 

Pillory,  use  of  the,  179-80 

Pitt,  William,  1st  Earl  of  Chatham, 
see  Chatham  ;  reason  of  his  success, 
92 ;  reply  to  Moreton,  92,  93 ; 
attack  on  Murray,  93 ;  and  the 
Admiralty,  93  ;  personality,  93,  94  ; 
style,  217  ;  Dr.  Johnson  and,  280 

Pitt,  William,  reformative  measures 
of,  12,  13;  saying  of,  quoted,  41; 
premiership,  54,  85,  96 ;  death,  77  ; 
and  Addington,  124;  hard  drinking, 
^93»  194  ;  oil  Bolingbroke,  203 ; 
and   Lord  Mahon,  221 ;   mentioned, 

70,  133,  253 
Place,  Francis,  14 
Plague,  the,  60 
Plimsoll,  164 

Plunket,  80,  158,  204,  219 
Plunket,  Lord,  Chancellor  of  Ireland, 

loi  notc^ 
Poaching,  punishment  for,  177 
Police,  ^Ietropolitan,  duties,  181,  182 
Ponsonby,  George,  200 
Pope,  on  government,  quoted,  19 ;  the 

"  Dunciad,"  1 79  note"- 
Porritt,  cited,  257 
Porson,  217 


310        THE   MOTHER   OF   PARLIAMENTS 


Portland,  Duke  of,  46  ;  notes  on 
forming  a  ministry,  95  ttote ' 

Praed,  poet,  his  advice  to  the  Chair, 
129 

Praise  God  Barebones,  7,  8 

Precedence,  the  question  of,  27 

"  Premier,"  the  word,  89 

Prevention  of  Crimes  (Ireland)  Act, 
227 

Press,  the,  freedom  of,  3 ;  Parliament 
and,  275-287 

PrMe,  Colonel,  181 

Prime  Minister,  his  position  to-day, 
88-89  ;  the  title,  89 ;  qualities  of 
successful  Prime  Ministers,  90-95  ; 
choosing  a  ministr)*,  95-96  ;  appoint- 
ing Ministers,  96-9S ;  (offices  filled  by 
the  Prime  Minster;  98  note* ;  the 
number  of  ministers,  98-icXJ;  de- 
livery of  the  seals,  100 

Printing,  laws  regulating,  278 

Prinr,  Slatlhew,  2 

Priory  Church,  lilackfriars,  67 

"  Privilege,"  4th  January,  1 642... 8 

Privileges,  Parliamentary,  173-188 

Privy  Council,  the,  22,  Si,  82,  84  ;  the 
Judicial  Committee,  1 10  ;  mcmljcrs, 

138 
Procedure,     Standing    Orders,     159; 

Gladstone's     proposed      alteration, 

171, 172 
Property  qualification,  4 
Protectionists,  204 
"  Protections."  sale  of,  175 
Protestants,  13 
Proxies,  252 

Pr)-mc,  "  Kccollectinns,"  13  note* 
Prynnc,  **  Hrief  Register,"  quoted,  3  and 

fiote^y  185 
Public  Bills,  231 

Pugin,  Augustus  Welby,  73  note ' 
Pultcney,  18,  256 

Punishments,  Parliamentary,  173-188 
Puns,  ic»,  loi,  lOl  note^ 
Putney,  77 
Pym,  8,  2S7 


Quakers  and  the  oath,  147 
Quecnsberr}',  Kitty,  Duchess  of,  270 
Questions,  239-241 
Quorum,  234,  235 


•'  Radical,"  the  term,  14 
Raikes,  42 

Raleigh,  Sir  Walter,  249 
"Rapparees,"  i^note* 
Rasch,  Sir  Carne,  168 


Reading,  60 

Records,  lack  of  early,  3 

Redistribution  Bill  of  1883  and  1S85 
. .  .43  note  * 

Reform  Act  of  1832.. .4,  10,  33  note  *, 
38,  41,  116,  123,  148  note\  165,  168, 
227,  253  ;  Brougham's  speech,  194 

Reform  Acts  of  1867,  1884.. .42,  256 

Reform,  Parliamentary,  183 1... 29 

Remonstrance  of  16S2...82 

Reporting,  Parliamentary,  275-287  ; 
"  Diurnal  occurrences  of  Parlia- 
ment," 278  ;  the  nightly  letter  to 
the  Sovereign,  2S6 

Requests,  Court  of,  70 

Restoration,  Parliament  under  the,  8 

Revolution,  16S8...4,  8,  14,41,60,  83 

Rich,  Speaker,  145 

Richard  II.,  22,  61,  67 

Richmond,  I)uchess  of,  27 1 

Richmond,  (3rd)  Duke  of,  31,  264; 
(4th,  1831),  197 

Rights,  Hill  of,  224 

Riley,  258  note ' 

Ripen,  60 

Robinson,  259 

Robinson,    Sir    11.    Crabb,   "Diary," 

fuotei/,  224 
Roche,  Sir  Hoyle,  "  bulls  "  of,  209 
Rochefoucauld,  La,  saying  of,  quoted, 

222 
Rochester,  Earl  of,  192 
Rochester,  representation  of,  40 
Rockingham,  Lord,  91 
Rogers,  sajnng  of,  quoted,  115 
Rollc,  John,  196 
RcUiad,  the,  Thurlow's  character  per- 

traye<l  in,  112 
Rolls  of  Parliameat,  3,  146 
Roman    Catholic   Emancipation    Bill, 

201 
Roman  Catholics,  disabilities,  17  note^, 

no,  146,  147 
Romilly,  Sir  Samuel,  speech,  22S,  229 
Rosalinda,  story  of,  269 
l\ose.  Sir  George,  194 
Rosei)ery,  Lord,  on  the  reform  of  the 

Lords,    18,    35-37.  37    «<"''.    38: 

saying   of,  quoted,  58  note  * ;  on  old 

speeches,  203,  235 
Rothschild,  Baron  Lionel  de,  147 
Rotten  boroughs,  12,  40,  225 
Roundheads,  the,  1 3 
Royal  assent,  246  and  noti^,  247 
Runnymede,  21 
Rush  worth,  277 
Russell,  Earl,  trial,  186  note  * 
Russell,  Lord  John,  and  corruption,  12  ; 


INDEX 


3i« 


saying  of,  quoted,  14;  and  Peel,  17  ; 
on  heredity,  quoted,  19 ;  minority 
54 ;  in  the  Cabinet,  85 ;  premier- 
ship, 91,  92 ;  Disraeli  and,  164 ; 
defeat  in  1854.. .253  ;  and  the  admis- 
sion of  strangers,  262  ;  and  the 
Press,  285 
Russell-Gladstone  Cabinet,  the,  256 


St.  Asaph,  Bishop  of,  iSi 

"  St.  James's  Chronicle,"  178 

St.  James's,  Court  of,  iii,  112 

St.  John  of  Jerusalem,  Hospital  of,  the 
Prior,  23  note ' 

St.  Leonards,  Lord,  1 1  r  note  ' ;  saying 
of,  quoted,  1 15 

St.  Margaret's  Church,  Westminster, 
146,  226  note  S  236 

St.  Paul's  Cathedral,  66 

St.  Simon,  94 

St.  Stephens,  the  Chapel,  66-^8,  236, 
249,  261,  271  ;  the  Lobby,  68,  69  ; 
the  Painted  Chamber,  69,  70,  72 ; 
the  Prince's  Chamber,  70;  the 
Crypt,  72 ;  Hall,  263  ;  Porch,  265 

Salisbury,  Lord,  on  the  functions  of 
the  Lords,  28,  34 ;  bill  for  reforming 
the  House  of  Lords,  36  ;  Premier- 
ship, 87,  92,  94  ;  Queen's  Speeches, 
155  ;  an  apology,  199  ;  style,  222  ; 
mentioned,  95  note  ' 

Salisbury,  town  of,  60 

Salomons,  Alderman,  147 

Sandeford,  180 

Savage,  Sir  Arnold,  speaker,  125, 
note^ 

Schomberg,  67 

Scotch  Militia  Bill,  248 

Scotland,  bribery  of  Members  of  Parlia- 
ment, 9  and  note^ ;  Act  of  Union, 
24 

Scottish  Parliament,  the,  191 

Scottish  Peers,  26  ;  introduction  cere- 
mony, 151 

Scrope,  Lord,  191 

Seal,  the  Great,  stolen  from  Lord 
Thurlow,  104  note '  ;  Keepership, 
105  ;  Women  Keepers,  105 ;  Lord 
Brougham's  method  of  returning, 
116  ;  breaking  up  of  the,  I18 

Seals,  the,  delivery  of,  loo,  lOi  ;  puns 
on,  loi  note ' 

Seats,  retention  of,  138;  purchase  of 
176 

Selden,  on  Law  and  Equity,  107 ; 
sayings  of,  quoted,  l^,^  and  note^  ; 
on  Parliamentary  privileges,  quoted, 
176 


Select  Committees,  appointment  of, 
230 

Selwyn,  10 

"Senate  of  Lilliput,"  279,  280 

Septennial  Act,  the,  li,  12,  206,  279 

Sergeant-at-Arms,  the,  75,  136,  138, 
147,  148,  150;  duties,  181  and  note'' 
-82,  259 

Servants  and  privileges,  174,  175 

Session,  the  Parliamentary,  225 

Seymour,  Sir  Edward,  Speakership, 
122,  123,  132,  144,  190 

Shaftesbury,  Earl  of,  (Baron  Ashley), 
12,  163,  213,  ?.']0,  277;  Lord 
Shaftesbur}-,  (1831),  197 

Shaw,  17 

Shell,  "  Sketches  of  the  Irish  Bar,"  78 
-80 ;  on  Brougham,  quoted,  1 16 ; 
punishment,  188  note ' ;  facts,  quoted, 
203  a7id  note  '  ;  attack  on  Lord 
Lyndhurst,  264 

Sheridan,  sayings  of,  quoted,  97,  148 
note^,  208;  and  George  IV.,  156; 
motions  to  adjourn,  168  ;  speeches 
of,  204,  205,  212,  213,  218,  223; 
the  "  Begum  "  speech,  205  and  note  *  ; 
speech  at  the  trial  of  Hastings,  282  j 
on  the  liberty  of  the  Press,  287 

Shippen,  William,  149  note  * 

Sibthorpe,  Colonel,  saying  of,  quoted, 
199,  200 

Sidmouth,  Lord,  see  Addington 

Sidney,  Algernon,  saying  of,  quoted, 
48  note ' 

Simon  de  Montford,  4 

Slaves,  emancipation  of  the,  116 

Smalley,  servant,  175 

vSmith,  Sidney,  cited,  29,  II5 

Smith,  Speaker,  182 

Socrates,  saying  of,  quoted,  52 

Somers'  trial,  63 

Somerset,  Duke  of,  (1547)  179;  (1790, 
1800)  253 

Somerset,  G.,  115  note^ 

Somerset  House,  267 

"Sopher,"  103  note^ 

South  Sea  Bubble,  188 

Sovereign,  the,  and  the  Barons,  4; 
presence  in  Parliament,  8  ;  approval 
of  the  Speaker  elect,  144 

Spanish  Armada,  70 

Speakers  of  the  House  of  Commons, 
youthful  Speakers,  53  ;  origin  of  the 
office,  119;  character,  120-122;  the 
Crown's  influence,  122,  123  ;  influ- 
ence of  the  Ministry,  123 ;  im- 
partiality established,  124,125  ,  duties 
and  qualifications,  125,  126;  physical 
qualifications,    127-131  ;  "catching 


312 


THE   MOTHER   OF   PARLIAMENTS 


the  Speaker's  eye,"  129,130;   dress, 


131 


remuneration,       132,    133 


Speaker's  dinners,  132,  133;  collateral 
appointments,  133,  134;  retirement, 
134  ;  his  election,  141-143  ;  election 
confirmed  in  the  House,  144  ;  servile 
speeches,  144,  145  ;    taking  the  oath, 
146  ;  '•  reporting  "  the  King's  speech, 
156;    deference  to  the  Chair,   162; 
substitutes,  233, 234  ;  the  casting  vote, 
252 
"  Speaker's  chop,"  229 
"Speaker's  dinners,"  132 
Speaker's  Gallery,  265 
Spiritual  Lords,  22,  23 
Spithead,  naval  review,  74 
Spring-Rice,  2S3 
Stael,  Mme.  de,  32  note" 
Stagg,  Mrs.  Anne,  237 
Stamp  duties,  278 
Standing  Committees,  232 
Standing  Orders,  159 
Stanley,  Lady,  lS6 
Stanley,  Lord,  91  note^ 
Star  Chamber,  106,  175,  232 
Statute,  legislation  by,  242 
Steele,  expelled,  188;  on  the  House  of 

Commons,  206  ;  "  The  Crisis,"  213 
Stock  Exchange,  the,  188 
Stockdale,  publisher,  285 
Stoke,  59 

Storie,  arrest  of,  179 
Stourton,  Lord,  27 
Straftord,  Earl  of,  63,  82,  277 
Strangers      in      Parliament,    259-274 ; 
balloting  for  scats,   263  ;    Disraeli's 
resolution,  265 
Stratford,  Archbishop  and  Chancellor, 

106 
Strode,  8,  162,  185 
Stuarts,  the,  and  the  Tarliament,  6,  13, 

190 
Sudbuiy,  276 
Sufifragettes,  the,  182 
Sugden,    Edward,  see    St.    Leonards, 

Lord 
Sullivan,  A.  :M.,  76,  77 
Sunderland,  Earl  of,  14,  S3 
Supremacy,  Act  of,  (1563),  146 
Suspension  of  a  member,  1S7 
Sutton,  Speaker  Manners,  68,  126  and 

noie^,  133,  134,  141,  142,  221 
Swift,  203  ;  "  The  Examiner,"  27S 


Tacitus,  i,  203,  2S2 
"Tacking,"  30>  3'.  34 
Talbot,  Lord,  King's  Champion,  63,  64 ; 
Lord  Chancellor,  96 


"Tallies,"  70,  71 

Tangye,  Lady,  7  note ' 

Tanner,  Dr.,  164;  arrest  of,  176 

Tapestries  at  Westminster,  69,  70 

Temple,  Lord,  95  note '  ;  and  Home 
Tooke,  56  note  ' 

Tennant,  K.,  220  note^ 

Test  Act,  27  note  *,  $5 

Test  Roll,  the,  146 

Thames  Embankment,  the,  61 

Thanet,  Lord,  95  note ' 

Thorpe,  Thomas,  Speaker,  174 

Thurloe,  Cromwell's  Secretary,  III 

Thurlow,  Lord,  saying  of,  quoted,  32  ; 
Chancellor,  86,  111-113,  198  ;  loss 
of  the  Great  Seal,  104  note'^ 

Tichborne  case,  152,  253 

"Times,  The,"  article,  quoted,  154 
fiote^;  printer  fined,  183;  Parlia- 
mentary reports,  284 

Tooke,  Rev.  J.  Home,  56  and  note ' 

Tories,  269  ;  origin,  13,  14 

Torrington,  Lord,  53 

Tothill  fields,  70 

Tower  of  London,  74,  108,  163,  1 75. 
179,  180,  192,  281 

Townscnd,  "  History  of  the  House  of 
Commons,"  quoted,  133 

Townshend,  Charles,  sayings,  quoted, 
91,  207  ;  his  "  Champagne  Speech," 

193 
Townshend,  Thomas,  193 
Treason  Bill,  (1695)  213 
Treasury  Bench,  138 
Treasury,  corruption  of  the,  12 
Trevor,  Sir  John,  bribery  practised  by, 

9;  speakership,  123  and  note  ^ ;  1^0 

and  note' 
Triennial  Act  (1694),  II 
Troy,  Siege  of,  70 
Tudors,  the,  and  Parliament,  81 
Turner,   Sir  Edward,  corruption  of,  7 

note ' 
Twiss,  253 
Two  Power  Standard,  principle  of  the, 

109  and  note* 
Tydder,  Cadwallader,  140 


Union,  Acts  of,  24,  42 
Usher  of  the  Black  Rod,  136 


Vaughan,  General,  95  note^ 
Vere,  Aubrey  de,  62,  note  ' 
"  Vetus  Codex,"  the,  3 
Victoria,  Queen,  Parliament  under,  25, 
55,  286  note^;  and  the  creation  of 


INDEX 


313 


Peers,  26  note^  ;  dividing  the  Seal, 
118  ttote^  ;  the  Queen's  Speech,  156 

Viscounts,  creation  by  Henry  VI,  27 

Voltaire,  quoted,  50,  51 

"Votes  for  Women,"  182,  273,  274, 
238,  note^ 

Voting  by  proxy,  252 


Waldegrave,  Lord,  243 

Waldegrave,  Sir  Richard,  144 

Wales,  Prince  of,  at  the  opening  of 
Parliament,  153 

Walgrave,  Bill  of,  243  note"^ 

Wallace,  William,  trial,  63 

Waller,  the  poet,  53 

Walpole,  Horace,  on  the  functions  of 
the  House  of  Lords,  28  ;  Pitt's  reply 
to,  54  7iote^  ; cited,  63,  64  ;  "  Letters," 
quoted,  90  note^,  128  and  note" ,  186 

Walpole,  Sir  Robert,  on  corruption, 
10,  12  ;  expulsion  and  re-election, 
58,  59,  188;  ministry,  84,  86,  90  and 
note*,  91,  96,  100,  154,  227,  253  ; 
refusal  of  Downing  Street,  87  ;  and 
William  Shippen,  149  7tote '  ;  on 
Townshend,  193  ;  a  story  of,  206,  207  ; 
first  speech,  212  ;  on  Fox,  217  ; 
Pulteney  and,  256 

Wanklyn,  Colonel,  case   of,    174,  175, 

Ward,  punishment,  lyg  and  note ^ 
Wars  of  the  Roses,  40  . 
Waterloo  Station,  137 
Waveney,  Lord,  167  note^ 
Wedderburn,  see  Loughborough,  Lord 
"  Weekly  Political  Register,"  284 
Welbeck    Abbey,    unpublished    manu- 
scripts, 95  note ' 
Wellesley,   Lord,  85  ;   threatened   im- 
peachment, 124 
Wellington,    Duke  of,  and  the   rotten 
boroughs,   12;  and   the   Corn    Law, 
29 ;     on    the    Reformed    House    of 
Commons,    42  ;   sayings   of,    quoted, 
116  note,  '  222  note^  ;  and  Manners 
Sutton,    134;  duel,  201  ;  Mentioned, 
32,  67,  85 
Wensleydale,  Lord,  see  Parke 
Wentworth,  Lord,  95  note  ' 
Wessex,  Gemot  of,  2,  3 
Westbury,  borough  of,  44,  45 
Westbury,  Lord  Chancellor,  puns,  10 1 

note ' 
Westcote,  Lord,  95  note^ 
Westminster   Abbey,    100,    227,    236 ; 

coronations  in,  64 
Westminster  Hall,  inundation,  61  ;  the 
Law    Courts    removed    from,    64  ; 


trading  within  the  precincts,  64,  65  ; 
structural  altefations,  65,  66  ;  the  fire 
of  1 834... 70-72  ;  Hastings'  trial,  205 
Westminster,  Palace  of,  history,  the 
seat  of  Parliament,  60-62  ;  the  Lord 
Great  Chamberlain's  duties,  62  note^ ; 
histonc  scenes,  63, 64 ;  Court  of 
Requests,  70  ;  Court  of  Bankruptcy, 
70  ;  fire  of  1 834... 70-72  ;  Victoria 
Tower,  72  ;  the  new  houses  of  Parlia- 
ment, 72,  73,  73  note  ' ;  Speaker's 
residence,  132  ;  searching  the  vaults, 

13s.  136 
Wetherell,     Sir    Charles,    sayings    of, 

quoted,  1 68,   169  ;  speeches,  221 
Wherry-men,  269 
"  Whig  Examiner,"  the,  278 
Whigs,  the,  origin,  13  ;  principles,  14, 

269 
Whips,  parliamentary,  254-258 
Whitehall,    8,    17,    62,    84,    137;  the 

banqueting  room,  226  note  * 
White's  Club,  li 
Whitty,  E.  M.,  book  of,  44  tiote^ 
"  Who  Goes  Home  ?  "  52  and  note^ 
Widdrington,    Sir    Thomas,    Speaker- 
ship, 233 
Wilberforce,    Bishop,  attack  on   Lord 

Derby,  194  note ' 
Wilkes,  John,  59,  286 ;  A^ort/i  Briton, 

66,  188,  281  ;  sayings  of,  quoted,  112 

note  ^  ;  duel  200  ;  speeches,  210 
William  L,  4,  81 
William    H.,   and  Westminster   Hall, 

60,  61,  65  note^ 
William   HL,    reign,    8,    14,  55  ;   the 

Party  principle,   14  ;    Cabinets,   83  ; 

statutes  of,  123  ;  bills  quashed,  248  ; 

newspapers,  278 
William    IV.,  33,  note  -,    197  ;  Chan-   . 

cellors,     118;    the   King's    Speech, 

Williams,  Bishop,  104 

Williams,  John,  pilloried,  66 

Wilmington,  Lord,  133,  143,  167 

Winchelsea,  Lord,  duel,  201 

Winchester,  60 

Windham,  178 

Windsor,  66 

Windsor  Royal  Park,  132 

Wingfield_,  197 

Winnington,    on   the  freedom   of    the 

Press,  281 
Witan,  the,  2 
Witenagemot,    2,    39,    81  ;    property 

qualification,  4  ;  presence  of  women, 

268  note"^ 
Wolsey,  Cardinal,  53,  104  ;  appearance 

in  the  Commons,  189 


314 


THE   MOTHER   OF   PARLIAMENTS 


Women  agitators,  237,    238 ;    suffrage 

petilii)n,    238   tiott '  ;    and    politics, 

268  and  note  "^^  269 
Wood,  Sir  Mark,  sale  of  a  seat,  10 
Woodfall,     William,    his    opinion    of 

Sheridan,  212,    213;  "The  Diary," 

283,  284 
Woolsack,  deference  to  the,  162 
Wraxali,  272  ;  "  Memoirs,"  quoted,  86 
Wray,  Christopher,  142 
Wriothesley,    Lord,    Chancellor,     107 

and  note  * 
Wykeham,  William  of,  104 
Wyndham,  279  note* 


Wynne,    Sir    Watkin,     "Bubble    and 
Squeak,"  220,  221 

Yelverton,  Sergeant,  Speaker,   127, 

142 
Yeoman  Usher,  the,  136 
Yeomen  of  the  Guard,   135,   136,  153, 

154 
York,  60,  82 
York,  Archbishop  of,  23 
York,  Duke  of,  67 

Zoological  Gardens,  265 


FRIKTBD    BV 

WILLIAM   CLOWES    AND   SONS,    LIMITED. 

LONDON    AND   HECCLBS. 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 

Los  Angeles 
This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below. 


NOV  1 1 1950' 
QV  18  1951 4 

)CT  1  3  1956 

IFEB  1  4  HUD 

^i  2  ?  1S64 

oft  jRt 

M'^-^  .-1.  '>••• 


NilvR 


197S 


I 


Form  L9-25»i-9.'47(A5618)444 


UNIVERSITY  of  CALIFORNIA 

AT 

LOS  ANGELES 

LIBRARY 


J. 


L  009  530  519  g 

iiiiiliSiiiBiiiiiSr'^^  ^'^'^^"^  ^^^'^'^^ 

AA       001353  009        ? 


.•^' 
^ 


